Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Airedale Route

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to bring about the speedy completion of the Airedale route through Bingley and Saltaire.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Excellent progress has been made on the preparation of the A650 Bingley relief road scheme.
The proposed A650 Saltair relief road is at a very early stage of development. The Highways Agency is currently pressing ahead with surveys which will facilitate the development of detailed proposals.

Mr. Sutcliffe: This road is vital to the people of Bradford and Keighley and to their economic success. Will the Minister today guarantee that the road will be completed, after £12 million has already been spent progressing the work thus far? Everyone in the area, of whatever party—including those who drew up the economic strategy of the district—depends on the road. We have read in this morning's press that the Government will need to take transport off the road and put it on to rail. I accept that, but the road is vital to our area and we need guarantees from the Minister today.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this series of seven schemes is intended to bring a raft of environmental and economic benefits to the communities in the area. He will be aware that two have been completed; five are in preparation. I am pleased to note the hon. Gentleman's support for these schemes, by contrast with the stance of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who reiterated yet again today that the Labour party would impose a moratorium on all road schemes.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that people find it difficult to understand why the Bingley bypass has only priority 2 status? Some very expensive preliminary works, including the diversion of the Leeds and Liverpool canal, have already been completed. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the completion of the Airedale route, as soon as humanly possible, is essential to large numbers of businesses in Keighley and the Aire valley, and hence to much employment.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend's point is well made. 'There was, however, a thorough review of the road programme in March this year. As a result of that review, this scheme was placed in the priority 2 category—but I note what he

has said, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has said. The latter has already impressed on me the importance of these schemes to his constituency.

Network SouthEast

Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been invested in the Network SouthEast rail area over the last three years.

Mr. Watts: To March 1994, £1.4 billion at today's prices has been invested in the former Network SouthEast over the three years ended March 1994.

Mr. Merchant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 15,000 commuters in my constituency have in the past three years seen the biggest investment in their local lines in living memory? Is he aware that that has meant whole new fleets of Networkers being brought in to run the services, a major modernisation of track, improvements to signalling, and a refurbishment programme for local stations? All this has considerably increased the quality of local services.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has almost answered his own question extremely well. I can confirm that investment in 1992–93, which was £558 million, was the highest since Network SouthEast was created in 1985. I am pleased to learn from my hon. Friend that his constituents are benefiting so much from the substantial and worthwhile investment of the past three years.

Ms Glenda Jackson: How long will such investment via subsidy continue for lines that are having difficulty becoming economically viable, to use the Secretary of State's words? It is Railtrack's stated policy that it will not support every route, and that it cannot and should not take into consideration social issues. Just who will be defining policy for the railways in future—or is this another example of the Government not only failing to communicate but failing to think things through?

Mr. Watts: No. The hon. Lady confuses two things. Railtrack and the rolling stock leasing companies will make investments on business grounds. It is the franchising director who commands a substantial budget to be spent on ensuring that socially necessary services continue to be secured for the benefit of the travelling public.

Mr. Haselhurst: On the day when the case for a fifth terminal at Heathrow has been published, is it worth reminding my hon. Friend of the need to think ahead to ensure adequate capacity on the railway line out of Liverpool Street station to Stansted airport and stations in my constituency, because a third track and resignalling will be needed in the next few years?

Mr. Watts: I had the pleasure of travelling on that service when I returned from Stansted airport recently. I note what my hon. Friend says. He will be aware, in the context of airports generally, that the British Airports Authority has commissioned a half a million pound study of rail links to airports. We await that with great interest.

Mr. McLeish: Despite the Minister's complacency about investment in the south-east, can he confirm today that this is the first year since 1940 in which British Rail, or any of the 25 train operating units, has placed no new


orders for rolling stock? Will he acknowledge that privatisation is tearing the heart out of the railways? It is affecting morale, service and routes and, of course, it will affect investment in every part of the country. Surely we have a right to expect, after the drubbing of Dudley, to see some humility and sanity from Transport Ministers on the Front Bench [Interruption.] The Minister is responding. I enjoy that. Or are they content just to sit back and wait until they see the humiliation of the poll tax, Post Office privatisation and VAT on fuel revisited on Ministers? Will they take action now to protect our railways well into the next century?

Mr. Watts: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is complacent about investment in the railways. In the past five years, there has been more than £6 billion-worth of investment in the railway as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will know that the financing plans announced at the time of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget provide for investment to continue at around £1 billion a year—three quarters of a billion pounds funded from taxpayer's resources and one quarter of a billion from the private sector. That is a very substantial and continuing investment programme.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) told my constituents at the previous general election that the Conservative Government would not bring Networker trains to the north Kent line, may I congratulate my hon. Friends on the massive introduction of Networkers that has taken place over the past two years on that line? Can we be told something of the further extension of Networker trains to the Kent coast line?

Mr. Watts: We hear from my hon. Friends the real benefits that are coming from the substantial investment that has been undertaken and which will continue, in contrast to the empty rhetoric and scaremongering by hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench.

Rural Travel

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he has made to ensure that the vulnerable and elderly can still meet essential travel needs in rural areas following petrol price increases.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Local authorities already have sufficient powers to subsidise the running of additional bus services in rural areas where they see a need. In considering provision of those services, they are required to take into account the transport needs of elderly and disabled people.

Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that, following the recent petrol price increases, the local bus company in the Scottish borders has announced fare increases of 8 per cent.—well above the rate for either wage or pension increases? Does he accept that many people in areas that do not have bus services run vehicles that cost less than the annual road fund tax? When will he stop using petrol pricing as a mechanism to check the interests of the environment, and introduce road pricing policies in the cities, where the private car is a luxury not a necessity?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to tell the people of Scotland that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made a significant contribution to the increase in petrol

prices announced last week when they voted as they did for VAT on fuel. Everybody understands that. It may be an embarrassment to them now, but it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor who drew attention to the consequences for the rural areas of the vote that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues cast.

Mr. Robathan: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report-[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I cannot hear what is being shrieked at me by Opposition Members.

Madam Speaker: I can hear very well. Other hon. Members are suggesting that the hon. Gentleman removes his hands from his pockets when he stands to ask a question.

Mr. Robathan: Thank you for your assistance, Madam Speaker. Should I require any advice on deportment or sartorial elegance I shall come to you because you are an example to us all, but I will not take advice from the scruffy yobbos on the Labour Benches.

Madam Speaker: I have no pockets in which to put my hands. That is why my deportment is so good.

Mr. Robathan: Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which recommends large increases in fuel prices? Does he think that that is one means, together with better public transport, by which to encourage a shift away from private cars? Does he think it curious that those who bleat about energy conservation and make political points about it do nothing about implementing measures that will conserve energy?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Royal Commission's report and some of its consequences. One reason why we want a debate on transport in general and the proposals in particular is that the implementation of some of the proposals and recommendations would have a significant effect on the lives of literally millions of people and would focus in particular on those who live in rural areas. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, we do not have a commitment to a carbon tax, which would make their position even worse.

Public Transport (Greater Manchester)

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about improvements to public transport in Greater Manchester.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Subject to the availability of resources, the Government are ready to fund worthwhile improvements to all forms of transport in Greater Manchester.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister realise that the people of Greater Manchester have suffered a decline in the frequency of their train and bus services and a decline in safety standards at stations because of the removal of staff, while the only minor improvement has been the restoration of trams in the centre of the town? If people in Greater Manchester are to enjoy good public transport, that requires substantial investment in at least five or six more lines for the Metrolink.

Mr. Norris: I am not entirely surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman spraying around yet more hundreds of millions of pounds in spending commitments, as the Labour party


is prone to do on every occasion. He has an extraordinarily partial view of public transport in Greater Manchester. To describe the Metro as a minor improvement is to turn churlishness into an art form. It is a superb piece of public transport infrastructure, which serves its purpose extremely well. The Passenger Transport Authority has spoken to us about further extensions and when those are ready to be considered in detail, we stand ready to do so.

Mr. Sumberg: Would not one way of providing more money for public transport in Greater Manchester be to abandon the disastrous proposal for the M62 relief road? That would not only generate resources, but ensure a feeling of great relief in my constituency and end the planning blight that presently exists as a result of the proposals.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way.

Mr. Meacher: As the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report published today makes it clear that the economics of many road building schemes are unviable—that includes not only the M25, but the M62 road widening—will the Minister answer the question that he has just dodged and tell us whether he will now call a halt to any further work on the M62 road widening?
As the logic of the SACTRA report is that any cut in road building will only increase congestion unless investment is shifted into alternative public transport systems, will the hon. Gentleman now concentrate instead on extending the excellent Metrolink in Manchester and on financing the trans-Pennine rail link, which would be far cheaper than the road works on the M62, would be far more popular and would do far more to relieve congestion?

Mr. Norris: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, as I told his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Manchester authorities have—unfortunately, at a late stage—brought forward plans for the second extension to the Metro system. We have said that we will be perfectly happy to examine those in detail, although no allocation has been made in respect of 1995–96 because it is not anticipated that work would start by that time, so to that extent the application is somewhat premature.
On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, my right hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear that the advice contained in the SACTRA report is valuable and entirely consistent with a number of the principles that the Department has been utilising for many years.
If I may say so, the real difficulty that has emerged from the matter is the extraordinary commitment of the hon. Gentleman, and indeed his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, to a complete moratorium on road building. That has already got the hon. Gentleman into trouble with his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who has just told the House how much he wants a road scheme. If the hon. Gentleman looks around him, he will find that every one of his hon. Friends favours abandoning the road programme in general—but not when it relates to their own constituencies.

Fenchurch Street Line

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that the Fenchurch Street line will be privatised; and which authority will have responsibility for reviewing fare levels.

Mr. Watts: In 1995. The franchising director may include provisions in franchise agreements to ensure the reasonableness of fares.

Sir Teddy Taylor: For many years, commuters from Southend-on-Sea have enjoyed a rather inadequate and erratic service; the line has become known as the misery line. Will the Minister do all in his power to ensure that privatisation brings real benefits to the commuters of Southend? In particular, will the Government ensure that the financial arrangements are published shortly, so that we can attract a wide range of bidders?

Mr. Watts: The franchising director will publish further details of the first eight franchises early in the new year. My hon. Friend will know that £83 million has been spent on major signalling works on the line; I hope that, after years of misery, his constituents will now start to notice some improvement in the standard of service.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State make it a condition of the franchises that no intermediate stations are closed, that the same volume of trains travel along the lines each week and that the length of trains is not shortened? Will the Minister give an undertaking that that will be a condition of the franchise for the Fenchurch Street line?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to note that, for the first time ever, the franchises let by the franchising director will include provisions concerning passenger comfort. As has been made clear many times in the House and elsewhere, the franchises will be based broadly on existing timetables. That cannot mean, however, that they will replicate those timetables in every detail, because that would not provide scope for the private-sector franchise operator to improve the service that is offered.

Mr. Channon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the line will give travellers the opportunity to benefit from a more punctual service, with reasonable rolling stock and reasonable fares? Is that not a great step forward?

Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

M11 Link Road

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the treatment by the Highways Agency and ,its agents of residents and other individuals along the route of the M11 link road.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am confident that the Highways Agency has treated residents with every consideration and everyone in accordance with the law.

Mr. Cohen: Has not the cost of policing and security on the M11 link road now reached £6 million, and is not the amount rising at a rate of more than £500,000 a month? During a recent week-long operation in Claremont road, which cost more than £2 million, were not many of my constituents bullied—including vulnerable people, and


others whose only crime was living on the line of route? Should not the Minister give an early Christmas present to the long-suffering residents of Leyton, and many others in this country, by promising that there will never again be another rotten road scheme like this in Britain?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not stand up and say thank you to the police, who carried out an operation—on behalf of the people whom he represents—against those who decided unilaterally to break the law. May I remind him that three public inquiries about the route have taken place, and that what the Highways Agency did was entirely in line with statutory provisions that had been democratically confirmed three times?
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that £4 million of Highways Agency money—Department of Transport money—that could have been better used to provide safety schemes and bypasses has been used up in this operation, along with £2 million of police money, including hundreds of man hours, which could have been better used to provide security on the streets in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. And he has not even had the decency to say thank you to the police.

Mr. Cash: Although my right hon. Friend makes a good point about the M11, does he accept that the Highways Agency should deal with a national problem: the gridlock that is emerging in regions such as that covered by the M6 near my constituency of Stafford and that is causing massive congestion, not only in Stafford but on the M6? Does he agree that we should have electronically operated signs on approaches to motorways such as the M11 and M6 to ensure that people do not go on to motorways in the first place and proper diversionary roads in constituencies that are affected by people who wish to get off the motorway, as Michael Carey of Stafford borough council recommended recently?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has abused the question on the Order Paper. I allowed him to proceed because he mentioned the Highways Agency and he kept mentioning the M11. But it was a total abuse of today's Question Time. If the Secretary of State could answer the question in half the time that the hon. Gentleman took to ask it, I should be extremely grateful.

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point out the need to provide drivers with more information than is available when they are in their cars and on motorways. I hope that he will be encouraged to know that I have increased the budget for that next year by about 20 per cent.

Ms Walley: Considering all the figures again—all the millions of pounds that have been spent on security—is not the real issue that the money for the roads programme is being spent on the basis of a formula that is rigged towards roads and that is not part of an integrated transport policy? Will the Secretary of State justify this road and all the other roads in the programme on the basis of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report published today? Why does he not come to the House and allow us debate its contents with him?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady will have to decide on which side of the road she wishes to walk. Last week, she condemned us because we did not spend £1.5 billion

more on local road schemes. Today, she wants a moratorium on all road building. She has to make up her mind on which side of the street she wants to walk.

Cowden Inquiry

Mr. Wolfson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make public the findings of the inquiry which has recently opened into the Cowden train crash.

Dr. Mawhinney: The Health and Safety Executive expects to publish the inspector's report in the spring.

Mr. Wolfson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the frequency of service on the Cowden line is only just over one half of what it was before the accident and that that is due to drivers' lack of confidence in the system? The provision of cab secure radios could go a long way to restoring that confidence. Will provision for them be made?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that both British Rail and Railtrack committed themselves at the public inquiry to putting cab secure radios on the Uckfield line. I shall encourage them to do so as soon as possible.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give hon. Members an undertaking that if the report makes it clear that, because of the cost of privatisation, safety measures are not being put in place either in the Cowden region or elsewhere, he will make money available to ensure that all safety measures are implemented as soon as possible? Some of evidence at the inquiry shows that British Rail is resiling from original decisions that it took some time ago.

Dr. Mawhinney: Clearly, as a member of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Lady will understand that I shall not comment on evidence that has been presented to the Committee, not least because the report will come to me in due course. I am happy to assure her, however, that my commitment to safety being paramount is unchanged.

London River Crossings

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for an additional river crossing between Dartford and Blackwall; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will decide on the new route for the east London river crossing.

Mr. Norris: Several proposals have been made, including alternatives to the previously planned east London river crossing. I am still considering how those proposals should be taken forward.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the considerable congestion at the Blackwall tunnel every day and of the fact that my constituents are getting rather cross because their journey to work is bad? Furthermore, does he agree that the development and regeneration of the riverside, including


the Thamesmead, Erith and Belvedere areas of my constituency, desperately require another crossing point to make it feasible for industry to relocate there?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend makes two very important points. First, he draws attention to the Blackwall tunnel, about which I can sympathise with him. He will be aware of our efforts, which mean that vehicles do not now collide with traffic from the north-bound tunnel. Nevertheless, we still have a problem trying to avoid the stoppages that occur too frequently. I can promise my hon. Friend that I am considering the problem urgently to see what more we can do.
Secondly, I endorse the general principle that he outlined which is that, essentially, the river crossings are about the economic regeneration of areas north and south of the river, areas that are represented by him and by other hon. Members. I am sure that he will agree that the appropriate outcome of our consultation on the various options will be a solution that local authorities themselves accept as being in their best interests in getting the right balance between any environmental impact and the economic regeneration which we all agree is so urgently needed.

Mr. Townsend: Number 9, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It has been called. The supplementary question is now required.

Mr. Townsend: When deciding the future of the east London river crossing, will my hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State to pay far more attention to the crucial environmental aspects of the route and, in particular, will he ensure that Oxleas wood is not damaged in any way? May I invite my hon. Friend and his dog to walk the route with me on new year's day?

Mr. Norris: His hon. Friend does not have a dog but I am sure that I could hire one for the day. Were I not otherwise committed, my hon. Friend's offer would not be unattractive. I have, in fact, walked that route a number of times. My hon. Friend will know that some time ago—nearly two years ago, I think—I made it clear that we would not be proceeding with the Oxleas wood scheme, for precisely the reasons that he has outlined. I did not think that it was an appropriate way to proceed but. as he knows, what remains at issue is the strategic objective that the east London river crossing was planned to deliver—that is, a link between the A13 and the A2, which remains of considerable importance for the economic regeneration of the region, as I said earlier.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that I have opposed the east London river crossing unless an extension of the docklands light railway were to run across it? As for the objective that he has just outlined—joining two trunk roads—would it not be good value for money, in the light of today's report, to extend the DLR by a single line tunnel under the Thames to relieve the congestion at Blackwall and on the other road crossings, which are a second priority for east London at the moment?

Mr. Norris: Without speculating on how the crossing might be achieved, I acknowledge the appropriateness of the hon. Gentleman's observation. Clearly, if the DLR were to be extended on whatever crossing were provided for the road, the value, certainly in terms of value for

money, would be in attaching the rail crossing to the road crossing. If the consequence of that were, for example, the ability to revitalise Thamesmead, which I know is of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and to others, that would clearly commend it as an option. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that local authorities in the area, especially Bexley, Greenwich and others, have been concerned about the impact of locally generated traffic on such a crossing, and it will be necessary to take their concern into account. That is what the consultation process is for.

Mr. Austin-Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for inviting the Minister to my constituency. Does the Minister agree that today's report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment casts severe doubt on the supposed economic advantages of the east London river crossing? What about the environmental damage that would be caused in an area where pollution already exceeds European guideline levels? Does the Minister not think that now is the time to put some resources into the railway crossing at Woolwich and into the provision of a Woolwich metro, which would do so much to regenerate the Thames gateway north and south of the river?

Mr. Norris: On the first point, I do not believe that the SACTRA report has a significant implication for the scheme about which the hon. Gentleman is talking. On the second point about the environmental consequences of the scheme, which is a slightly different issue, I remind him of what I said earlier. No one doubts that infrastructure of any sort will have some environmental implications. The decision for him, for his constituents, for his local authority and the local authorities on the other side of the, river, given that there is widespread agreement that we need more crossings of the river to facilitate economic regeneration, is how to balance the environmental consequences of the scheme and the economic consequences, and the job mobility that goes with that, of not providing the scheme.
The Woolwich metro is a good scheme. It is one of the options at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will look in the context of London river crossings. At this stage, it remains a good scheme, on which we are working.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to meet a cross-party deputation to discuss the Woolwich rail link, which would make a great deal of difference to all. Does he accept that about four fifths of extra traffic growth comes from increased economic prosperity and not from building new roads? If we want east London, north and south of the river, to share in that prosperity, we must have the crossings that we are contemplating. Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that whatever comes across the Thames does not turn south-west towards Brighton, but goes towards Dover, as that would meet the crossing's published purpose?

Mr. Norris: I will, of course, meet a delegation if my hon. Friend cares to bring one. If it is an all-party delegation, it will be so much the better for that. I note his other observations, and I believe that there is a great deal in what he says.

Public Transport (London)

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on public transport fare prices in London.

Mr. Norris: Public transport fares in London strike a reasonable balance between the farepayer and the taxpayer in meeting the costs of improving and maintaining the system. It is right that those who use the services and benefit directly from them pay their share of the system's costs.

Mrs. Roche: What does the Minister have to say to all the Londoners who, because of cuts in the Budget will, in January, face fare increases of, on average, three times the rate of inflation? Is it not about time that the people who use the transport system in London get some benefit from it and do not get clobbered, yet again, by this Government?

Mr. Norris: That is the most extraordinary economic analysis I have ever heard. I am delighted to be able to confirm that, such is the low level of inflation, as a result of the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, any increase in real terms looks like a sizeable multiple of the rate of inflation. I am delighted to put it on record that in reality—I note the hon. Lady's amnesia on this point—this is the lowest increase in cash terms in eight years. People in London understand clearly how important it is to have a reliable service, and they know that that relies on investment. Given the record levels of investment already coming from the taxpayer, it is not unreasonable that farepayers should make their contribution.

Mr. Ottaway: Inasmuch as fares affect my hon. Friend's budget, may I congratulate him on finding room in his budget for funding the Croydon light railway—the tram link in Croydon? It will do much to enhance Croydon's prosperity and to "regenerate the area.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was delighted to be able to say that funds had been reserved in our budget this year for that scheme to go ahead, subject to satisfactory bids being received from the private sector.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Would London farepayers not be happier about paying their fares if the Government had kept their promises on investment, which last year was £130 million short of what was promised in 1991 and which next year will be one third down on what London Underground has asked for? The money saved on the road-building programme in the budget has not been transferred to public transport, which is what the public have asked for and what today's report has confirmed as useful and necessary.

Mr. Norris: I am entirely satisfied that the public transport services in London have received record levels of investment over the past four years under this Government, in stark contrast to the pitiful levels of investment available during the 1970s under the Labour Government. It is really quite staggering to see that, in today's money, the Labour party was investing under £100 million a year in London Transport services, in

contrast to nearly half a billion pounds on LT alone and another half a billion pounds on Network SouthEast today.

Mr. Meacher: When will the Minister stop being so self-satisfied and wake up to the fact that London is now the most expensive capital in the European Union for commuters—more expensive even than Paris, Brussels or Rome—and that London fares are now almost twice the European average? What sense does it make to push up London's rail, bus and tube fares next month for the second year running by more than double the rate of inflation, since all that will do is force more commuters into cars and increase the levels of pollution and congestion? When will he call a halt to what is really at the root of this action—the Government's plans to remove all operating subsidy from rail services to the south-east, which an independent report recently predicted will increase fares by a further massive 65 per cent. over the next decade?

Mr. Norris: The one thing on which I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman is smugness and self-satisfaction. If there is one person who epitomises that on the Opposition Benches, it is the hon. Gentleman. As for his ludicrous scaremongering about fares and public transport services in the south-east, he really should know better. But then, we have come to expect no better from the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the only important statistic he appears to have overlooked is that when the Transport Research Laboratory looked exactly at what would happen if, for example, fares were reduced, it concluded:
cutting fares by 50 per cent. reduces traffic and emissions by only 1 per cent. to 2 per cent.
That is the reality and it is a reality which, of course, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues conveniently ignore, as they do on so many subjects where the facts contradict their own ludicrous assertions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Accounts (Department of Transport)

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what resources are made available by the Public Accounts Commission for the National Audit Office to audit the accounts of the Department of Transport.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office budget of £36.5 million for 1994–95 includes provision for financial audit of the Department of Transport, its executive agencies and its sponsored bodies and for value-for-money investigations. The forward investigation programme of the NAO is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Cohen: I thank the Chairman for that answer. May I ask him to have a look at the audit procedures in relation to the Department of Transport's spending on private detectives to spy on anti-road protestors? As far as I understand it, it initially thought that that spending was ultra vires, then subsequently allowed the Treasury to approve it retrospectively. Surely, no one else in the public sector—for example, councillors—would be


allowed to approve retrospectively expenditure which was regarded as ultra vires. Surely that is dubious audit practice, which should be looked at.

Sir Peter Hordern: I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to have a look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but, as I understand it, the Department of Transport has introduced revised contract procedures and the Treasury Solicitor will be approached and asked for advice as to whether detective agencies should be hired and who would be responsible for appointment of such agencies. I understand that that is the position. If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me, I shah try to let him have further information.

National Audit Office

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make more funds available for the National Audit Office to extend its oversight of bodies falling within the ambit of the Department for Education.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office budget of £36.5 million for 1994–95 includes provisions for financial and value-for-money audits at the Department for Education. The Comptroller and Auditor General has access rights to all universities. He is also the auditor of the funding councils established in 1993 for higher education and for further education in England, Scotland and Wales. A report on the financial health of higher education institutions in England was published earlier this month. Under the Education Act 1993, the Comptroller and Auditor General has access rights to grant-maintained schools and is required to report on his work annually to Parliament. The first report under those arrangements was published in August.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, speedy though it was, perhaps of necessity. Will he ask the National Audit Office to provide more funds so that grant-maintained schools can be audited more effectively? Under the present arrangements—it is made clear in the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—19 out of 20 grant-maintained schools were noted to have financial weaknesses. Three of them had qualified opinions from their own auditors. In Wales, serious reservations have been expressed about the book keeping of about half a dozen grant-maintained schools. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the NAO provides more money, or perhaps gets the Audit Commission involved, as it is in so many aspects of local government?

Sir Peter Hordern: As for the NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee is satisfied with the forward programme and with its budgets. I understand that the PAC has a forward programme for the investigation of several topics. Perhaps I might write to the Chairman of the PAC, who I see in his place, to draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Westminster Hall

Mr. Cox: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been

made by the Commission, to improve the access into Westminster Hall for disabled people via St. Stephen's entrance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): No financial provision has been made to improve access to Westminster Hall for disabled people via St. Stephen's entrance because arrangements are made for access via Carriage Gates and New Palace Yard. A stairlift gives access to the Grand Committee Room, and other levels in the Palace can be reached via Star Chamber Court and the No. 1 lift. The Accommodation and Works Committee is currently considering schemes to improve access for the disabled, and a number of schemes have been included in the programme of works for next year.

Mr. Cox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be received with utter disgust in the House and throughout the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that there are many people who have problems with walking, irrespective of age, who make their way into Westminster Hall via St. Stephen's entrance? Is he further aware that there are 24 extremely steep steps either to climb down or to climb up, which present enormous problems to many people? It is unbelievable, as we approach the 1995, that the Mother of Parliament cannot afford to provide proper access for disabled people. Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the importance of such provision with his colleagues?

Mr. Beith: I understand that what has persuaded the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and others who are members of the Accommodation and Works Committee to make access for disabled people—it is not available for other members of the public—via Carriage Gates is the practical difficulty of providing good access for the disabled through St. Stephen's entrance, for the very reason that he has given. If the hon. Gentleman has thought of a solution to the problem, I suggest that he directs it to the members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.

Mr. Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the said Committee has spent hours discussing the matter? One of the problems that we must face is that, when this historic building was built, it was not equipped, obviously, for access for the disabled. We must reconcile keeping the building and allowing proper access to it.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point clear. The Commission has shown no hesitation in making financial provision for whatever improvements to assist access for the disabled which its Committees recommend to it.

Live Feed of Proceedings

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee when financial provision will be made for a live feed of proceedings to be provided to hon. Members in their offices.

Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): Provision for cabling the Palace and outbuildings for the live feed of proceedings is already in


the works services estimates. By the end of the 1995 summer recess, I estimate that about 550 Members will be able to receive the live feed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No supplementary question.

Madam Speaker: Brilliant.

Christmas Trees

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed representing the House of Commons Commission, what further plans he has for expenditure on additional Christmas trees in the vicinity of Parliament.

Mr. Channon: I have been asked to reply. None.

Mr. Banks: Merry Christmas, Scrooge. I am very disappointed with that reply.
I am grateful to whoever was responsible for the tasteful tree in Westminster Hall, with its multi-coloured twinkling lights. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that it is not properly dressed. There is no fairy at the top and there are no balls on it, although the Government have dropped so many this year that the tree could have been covered with them from top to bottom.
We could also have a Santa Claus grotto in Westminster Hall, with the Prime Minister sitting in it saying, "Ho, ho, ho" and handing out peerages, knighthoods and places on quangos to his friends in the City. If we are going to go down the pan in this country, let us at least go down the pan with a bit of fun and in the appropriate festive mood.

Mr. Channon: It is abundantly clear that the hon. Gentleman is in an extremely festive mood. If he has some serious suggestions about where there should be more Christmas trees, naturally I will ask my Committee to consider them.

Staffing

Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list the staffing levels in (a) security, (b) health and safety and (c) works in each of the last three years.

Mr. Beith: The figures for staffing levels for the three years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 requested by the hon. Gentleman are as follows: security staff 421, 415 and 407 respectively; health and safety two, two and two and the works directorate 184, 181 and 103. In addition, there are a number of other staff whose duties involve aspects of security or health and safety.

Mr. Steen: Is it not true that there are now three buzz words—safety, security and hygiene? If one mentions any of those words in the Palace of Westminster, the people with the public purse get glazed eyes, reach for their wallet and are immediately prepared to shell out whatever money is asked for under those three heads. Should we look into the working practices in the Palace of Westminster and consider bringing in one of the better management consultant firms to examine whether this place is overmanned, whether there are too many people

in security and administration and whether we could save money in the Palace of Westminster to show that we set standards in this place which others can follow?

Mr. Beith: Whenever accidents occur in any of the three sectors to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the form of questioning to which those who are responsible in any organisation are subjected is quite different from the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked today. The House of Commons Commission, as an employer, must have regard to the safety of its employees in all those respects. However, at the same time, it seeks to pursue cost-effectiveness, and the staff inspector's work assisted in that. Where appropriate, it takes outside advice.

Parliamentary Data And Video Network

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans he has to finance the expansion of the parliamentary data and video network; and when hon. Members will be able to input data on to the network.

Mr. Channon: Following approval by the House of the Information Committee's report on the parliamentary data and video network on 30 June, the Finance and Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission have approved the necessary funding for the installation of the full PDVN. Members can input data into the network immediately they become users.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will any finance be available to provide inputting devices on to the network and to allow the use of the network for parliamentary papers and other information, which would cut down on the enormous printing bills in this place and, perhaps, save a few Christmas trees for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has raised an important and interesting point, about which I think that I had better write to him. The whole question of printing needs careful study and I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that the House has endorsed the report of the Information Committee, which allows any hon. Member who has a modem to have access to the network, whether or not that person is in a building which is directly linked to it?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very helpful point.

Disabled Facilities

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what new proposals he has for expenditure to improve facilities for the disabled in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Channon: The Finance and Services Committee has approved expenditure of £220,000 in 1995–96 on improvements to facilities for the disabled in the Palace of Westminster. Further sums will be available in subsequent years.

Mr. Flynn: What progress has been made in providing facilities for wheelchair users who work in this place, including catering staff, civil servants who cannot gain access to the Box, which limits their chances of promotion, and hon. Members who are wheelchair bound?

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, a special report by a firm of architects who are specialists in this work was produced to deal with the whole question of disabled people in the Palace of Westminster. I understand that the Accommodation and Works Committee has recently considered the report and it will come forward with recommendations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Finance and Services Committee has never been backward in providing money to help disabled people.

Mr. Jessel: How about facilities for the mentally disabled?

Mr. Channon: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion with the seriousness that it deserves.

Mr. Barnes: The failure to offer access to the Palace of Westminster for disabled people was revealed at no time more sharply than during the debates on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, when many disabled people wanted to be in the Gallery to listen to the debates. As a private Member's Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, will be debated on 10 February and as the Government are planning to produce their own Bill, can special arrangements, which could be built on in the future, be made to enable the disabled to have access to the House, because the paradox is that that legislation calls for access to buildings? The disabled should also have access to the House.

Mr. Channon: I have a great deal of sympathy for that point of view. Perhaps the hon. Member will address his remarks to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), whose Committee is considering the disabled. We would certainly be only too anxious to advance reasonable sums of finance for that important cause.

Christmas Decorations

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans he has for further Christmas decorations in the Palace of Westminster; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that there are no plans to put up further Christmas decorations in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Greenway: I share the pleasure of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) at the Christmas trees that you, Madam Speaker, arranged for New Palace Yard and Westminster Hall. I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman that at the top of a Christmas tree there should be a star—

Mr. Tony Banks: A red star!

Mr. Greenway: The Bethlehem star should be at the top of a Christmas tree, rather than a doll.
Perhaps funds could run to providing the hon. Member for Newham, North-West with a bow tie for Christmas, with flashing coloured lights on it, as that would be a permanent pleasure to him and to visitors to the House.

Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I can say anything further.

Members' Staff

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to extend parliamentary allowances to allow the full-time employment, at standard rates of pay, of at least one personal assistant, one research assistant and one constituency case worker for each hon. Member on the basis of direct payment of such salaries, national insurance and pension.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to introduce such a system. I believe that the majority of hon. Members would prefer the flexibility of the existing office costs allowance.

Mr. MacShane: Dear, oh dear! I had hoped that the Lord President would act as Father Christmas to us today.
Since I was elected to the House six months ago, I have been amazed by the third-world working conditions and staffing arrangements for hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I have to operate in an office in which one could not swing a dead mouse. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Transport in London agrees with me. I believe that those conditions are a deliberate means of preventing scrutiny of the Executive. All I am asking for is what an ordinary person in our job should have: a secretary, a researcher and someone to help with the constituency case work.

Mr. Winnick: A press officer.

Mr. MacShane: No, I do not need a press officer.
The Lord President and a small number of his colleagues will shortly be sitting on the Opposition Benches and I suggest that they should make preparations now for that eventuality.

Mr. Newton: I had some difficulty in discerning all of the hon. Gentleman's points because of the Christmas background noise, but perhaps I can make three points. First, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the conditions in the House are, to use his words, "third world", he should have seen what it was like when I came here 20 years ago. Secondly, it was decided recently—I cannot honestly claim as much credit for it as I would like since the House defeated me on the subject—to increase significantly the office costs allowance of hon. Members. Thirdly, to echo what I said in my original answer, it was made very clear in the debate on that increase that hon. Members value the flexibility of the existing arrangements.
In the spirit of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot offer him very much for Christmas, although at the moment there appears to be a vacant space at the top of a tree.

Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parliamentary allowances should also reflect the number of electors in the constituency of each hon. Member?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: I sense some support for my hon. Friend's suggestion—presumably it comes from those hon. Members who have constituencies like mine where the population has risen dramatically. I would not want to be the Leader of the House who attempted to justify that distinction in a clear-cut manner.

Sitting Days

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what has been the number of sitting days in the Commons for the Session 1993–94.

Mr. Newton: The number of sitting days in 1993–94 was 154.

Mr. Skinner: Set against the background that most people who have a job outside this place probably work more than 220 days in a given year, why should Members of Parliament discuss later today a four-day week for themselves? If we could argue for a four-day week for all those workers outside, we could mop up the 4 million people on the dole. Let us get our priorities right and look after our constituents, not ourselves.

Mr. Newton: We seem to have moved a long way from the Christmas spirit that was shown when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke. My answer is not very different from what I have said to the hon. Gentleman before: he may have his way of working—that is a matter for him—but others have theirs,

which includes doing an enormous amount away from Westminster. Most Members of Parliament work a six or seven-day week.

Members' Workload

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Lord President of the Council what studies have been made comparing the workload of hon. Members of the House with members of the legislatures within the United States of America, Canada, Australia and Germany; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: The evidence of the Select Committee on the sittings of the House made some comparisons between the sittings of this House and those of some other legislatures. I am not aware of other studies.

Mr. Mackinlay: While the House sits more than most other legislatures in the democratic western world, is it not a fact that they do half the work that we do because they are parts of federal systems? Does the Lord President agree that, although we try to do a lot more, we do it badly because we are overloaded when compared to Congress, the German Lander, and our Canadian and Australian counterparts?

Mr. Newton: Despite his attempt to justify the thrust of his question, the hon. Gentleman makes the key point. He has obviously looked at the work and found that this House sits more than almost any other. It certainly does not sit less.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House of Commons has more Members of Parliament in relation to population than most other countries? Did we not miss an opportunity to reduce the number when we introduced the boundary changes?

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether my hon. Friend will be the first in the line of volunteers. That is a matter for him.

Prison Security

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about prison security.
I am today publishing the report of Sir John Woodcock's inquiry into recent events at Her Majesty's Prison Whitemoor, and the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, His Honour Judge Tumim, of his inspection there earlier in the year.
Sir John Woodcock's report reveals a dreadful state of affairs at Whitemoor. I shall tell the House this afternoon what happened, the extent of the problems that exist, and the radical action which I believe needs to be taken to remedy them.
I turn first to what happened. On Friday, 9 September six prisoners attempted to escape from Whitemoor. The six prisoners were category A inmates who were held in the special secure unit. Shortly after eight o'clock in the evening, the prisoners, who were in possession of two guns, got out of the special secure unit and scaled the perimeter wall of the prison. A prison officer was injured by a gunshot during the escape.
All six prisoners were recaptured speedily. Four were apprehended almost immediately they got over the wall. The other two prisoners were arrested by the police about half a mile away from the prison. I pay tribute to the actions of the prison staff and police officers who apprehended these armed and dangerous men.
The following day, I appointed Sir John Woodcock, formerly Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, to conduct an inquiry. His terms of reference were: to inquire into all the circumstances surrounding the escape of six prisoners from the special secure unit of Whitemoor prison on the evening of Friday 9 September 1994; to report his conclusions to the Home Secretary; and to make recommendations on any action that should be taken to avoid a recurrence.
On 22 September, police officers conducting comprehensive searches at the prison discovered about one pound of Semtex explosive and three detonators. The find was made within a sealed storage container, which was within the perimeter of the prison but outside the special secure unit and other prison accommodation. Sir John Woodcock agreed that his inquiry should consider how those materials came into the prison.
There was an immediate need to reinforce security at Whitemoor and throughout the Prison Service. The following steps were taken for that purpose.
The special secure unit at Whitemoor was closed. An extensive programme to improve physical security at the prison was instituted, including reinforcement of the prison perimeter fence and provision of additional closed circuit cameras. That programme also includes the strengthening of the perimeter of the special secure unit itself, with additional alarm and detection devices. Additional searching facilities are being installed in the special secure unit, with an X-ray machine and metal detecting portal. The unit will not reopen until the full programme has been completed in the spring.
Full searches of all dispersal prisons holding high security prisoners were undertaken. Detailed specialist security audits were carried out at all special secure units.

All prisons holding category A prisoners were instructed to ensure strict enforcement of the searching procedures that are set out in the Prison Service manual on security.
Security was reviewed at all dispersal prisons, local prisons and category B training prisons, using each establishment's security audit; and all prison governors were instructed to re-examine their physical and procedural security measures.
I turn now to the conclusions reached by Sir John Woodcock. I am extremely grateful to him, especially for the speed and thoroughness with which he conducted the inquiry.
The report conveys a devastating picture of the regime in the special secure unit at Whitemoor. Sir John concludes in paragraph 9.30:
everything which could have gone wrong has in fact done so".
Sir John found that tension was high at the unit from its opening in 1991. He says at paragraph 9.7:
The Special Secure Unit lasted only three days from its opening before it suffered the first of many challenges from the inmates".
That confrontation was about the searching of visitors, following which prisoners were allowed to get what they wanted, and that, in Sir John's words,
set the tone of ensuing prison officer-inmate relationships".
He went on in paragraph 9.8:
The episode represented a victory for inmate power which was the foundation of more to follow".
The inquiry found many loopholes in the practices and procedures adopted at the prison. Paragraph 9.4 states:
At times it was difficult to find something being done in accordance with the Manuals.
Sir John also found that the amount of property allowed to prisoners made the searching of cells impractical, but statistical returns purported to show that searches had been fully carried out as required by the Prison Service security manual.
The report also highlights significant management failures. Managers in the prison should have known what was going on. The report also identifies a number of instances when Prison Service headquarters failed to provide the governors with the clarity and strength of support that they had a right to expect.
My first and overriding aim is to put right that which has gone so badly wrong. The Woodcock report makes 64 recommendations under 13 headings. I accept all of them. They cover the need to improve surveillance and observation; to improve the control of prisoners' property and the searching of their cells; to tighten up security procedures for visits and the searching of staff; to improve arrangements for the transfer of inmates' property; to improve security arrangements for new prison construction; to strengthen physical security measures at Whitemoor; to use dogs more effectively; to review the procedure for opening new prisons; to review inmate privileges; to improve staff selection and training; and to improve the effectiveness of management and supervision.
Many of those recommendations either have been or are being implemented. I have asked the Prison Service to prepare by the end of January a detailed timetable for each recommendation and the Prison Service has undertaken to provide that. I intend to publish that timetable except where there are security implications.
I have also considered whether more can be done. I have concluded that it is necessary to go beyond the security recommendations contained in the report. Three additional specific measures will be taken.
First, a more systematic method of recording and evaluating intelligence and security information on staff who might present a security risk will be introduced. Advance warning is clearly one of the most effective means of preventing escape attempts. Secondly, staff in high-security units will be equipped with personal alarms. Thirdly, the walls and fences of high-security units will be reinforced further with additional alarm, detection and anti-climbing devices.
Those measures are designed to address immediately the weaknesses identified by Sir John Woodcock. But I believe that, if public confidence is to be restored, it is essential to go further. An independent assessment is needed to create that confidence. That needs to examine thoroughly every aspect of security, identify any remaining deficiencies, and ensure that they are dealt with.
I am therefore appointing General Sir John Learmont, formerly Quartermaster General for the Army, to conduct a comprehensive, independent and authoritative review of security throughout the Prison Service. His terms of reference will be, in the light of the report of the inquiry into the attempted escape from Her Majesty's Prison Whitemoor on 9 September 1994, to review physical security and security procedures in the Prison Service in England and Wales, and to make recommendations.
Sir John will start work immediately. I shall publish his findings, subject to the overriding need not to publish anything which might compromise security. He will be assisted by two expert assessors. One will be Sir John Woodcock. The other will be someone with operational experience in the Prison Service.
Sir John Woodcock's report states that only closed visits would provide completely secure conditions, but he also acknowledges that there are other factors to be taken into account. I propose to ask Sir John Learmont to consider the need for closed visits in special secure units as part of his inquiry. I am also asking Sir John to report to me in 12 months on how far the recommendations of the Woodcock report have been implemented, as Sir John Woodcock suggests should be done.
In addition to security, Sir John Woodcock's report also identifies certain practices which were part of the prison regime, but which I and most hon. Members will consider unacceptable. Those have now ceased. The abuse of telephones identified in the report has now stopped. Controls on the keeping of possessions by prisoners in special secure units have been made more rigorous. The practice of prison officers going shopping at the behest of prisoners has also stopped. Purchases will take place only through the prison canteen. Luxury items will not be allowed.
The House will recall that I am already on record as saying that prisoners must not enjoy privileges as a matter of right, but should have to earn them. The Prison Service corporate plan, which was published in April 1994, already commits the service to put such a system in place. Idle or disruptive prisoners should not enjoy exactly the same conditions as those who are diligent and

co-operative. Privileges such as additional visits or extra time out of cells should be earned by good behaviour and lost by misbehaviour. The new system will be fully in place by the end of next year.
As part of that new approach, the amounts of private cash that prisoners are permitted to spend will be reduced, and in time the use of unearned private cash will be eliminated altogether.
The measures that I have announced today will deal with the problems identified in the Woodcock report—that is, those relating to security procedures in our prisons. But it is clear from the report that many, if not most, of the problems at Whitemoor arose not because procedures and instructions were not in place, but because they were not obeyed. As paragraph 9.27 of the report points out:
It could be said that what the Prison Service needs to do most of all is to comply with its own written instructions.
Sir John Woodcock's inquiry was not a disciplinary inquiry. Staff whom he interviewed were given an undertaking that their responses would not be used in any disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, I now need to appoint an investigating officer to carry out a disciplinary investigation. The investigation will consider all levels of the service.
The scope of the investigation and the importance of ensuring fairness and impartiality require the appointment of a person unconnected with the Prison Service. I intend to appoint Sir David Yardley, the former local government ombudsman, to conduct the inquiry, and have today informed the unions of my intention. This inquiry will determine whether evidence exists to institute disciplinary proceedings or any other action against any member of the Prison Service.
In the light of events at Whitemoor, I have considered whether any change is necessary in the arrangements for the supervision of the Prison Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes: resign."] I intend to set up a new unit outside the Prison Service to strengthen Ministers' ability to supervise the performance of the Prison Service in accordance with the framework document. [Interruption.] The country will see the frivolous way in which the Labour party is reacting to these serious matters, and will reach a judgment on the fitness of the Labour party even to debate these matters.
I am also publishing today the report of the inspection of Whitemoor by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. The inspection took place in March, and the inspection report was submitted at the end of July. The chief inspector, Judge Tumim, and Sir John Woodcock agreed that the inspection report should not be published while the inquiry was in progress.
The inspection report makes recommendations to the director general, the area manager and the governor, but none to me. When the chief inspector submitted the report, he made three points to me in a covering note. I quote from that note. He said:
The prison is developing satisfactory regimes despite the difficulty of having to manage two population groups which have to be kept apart. The quality of throughcare needs to be improved. Parts of the prison are very dirty.
The overall conclusion in the report is that Whitemoor had opened successfully. The regime was undergoing severe testing, but its potential to become an effective prison was clear from the enthusiasm and commitment of managers and staff.
The Prison Service is today publishing its response to the inspection report. I am placing a copy in the Library. The majority of its recommendations have been accepted and are already in hand.
What happened at Whitemoor was wholly unacceptable. No one can read Sir John Woodcock's report without being shocked by the catalogue of errors which occurred. The measures I have announced today are designed to ensure effective security in our prisons. They will make the lives of the most dangerous prisoners less comfortable, but they will help to fulfil what must be the first duty of the Prison Service: to keep prisoners in secure custody. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: We fully support the recommendations that Sir John Woodcock makes in his report.
Will the Secretary of State accept that the report describes the most serious breach of prison security for over three decades? Will he also accept that, the breach having occurred, the public owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the prison officers of Whitemoor and to the police, who showed such personal courage and dedication in tackling some of the most dangerous men in Britain?
Will the Secretary of State agree that the first and most fundamental duty of a top security prison such as Whitemoor is to keep the public safe from Britain's most violent criminals; and that the Woodcock report shows that the Prison Service failed in that most basic duty?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the report lists a series of failures which simply beggar belief? They include placing staff in a position where they were manipulated and intimidated by prisoners, so that the prisoners ran the prison. They further include allowing prisoners an inordinate number of possessions which were then used to conceal hacksaw blades, knives, razor blades and a screwdriver, and which prevented prison cells from being properly searched. Inmates in the regime accumulated so much material that it took the police four days to search and log just one inmate's property during the criminal inquiry which followed the prison escape.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Prison Service failed to provide adequate monitoring and surveillance of visits, exercise and the hobbies room, which was described as
an Aladdin's cave of equipment"?
Will he acknowledge that the Prison Service gave prisoners the chance to make their getaway equipment behind net curtains in the hobby room? The report describes it as
by far the most disturbing and frankly quite bizarre
aspect of this sorry situation? Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, most disturbing of all, the service allowed the highly dangerous bomb-making explosive, Semtex, to be smuggled into the prison?
Against the background of this damning report, does not the Secretary of State understand that, after 15 years of the Conservatives posing as the party of law and order, the truth about this Government is that, while they are strong on words, they are extremely weak on action?
Surely the whole House must share my utter astonishment that, in all 46 paragraphs of the statement this afternoon, there was not a single indication that the Secretary of State was willing to accept any personal responsibility whatever for this monumental failure. [HON.

MEMBERS: "How could he?"] Let me explain how he could. Will the Secretary of State accept that two different people have claimed that he was warned in advance about the situation at Whitemoor—the former chairman of the board of visitors, Mrs. Paddy Seligman, and his hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)? Why did he not mention either of those claims in his statement?
Let us deal first with the allegations by Mrs. Seligman, who complains in her 1992 and 1993 annual reports of the extremely lax security at the prison, and of an
apparent disregard by the Home Secretary of recommendations in our Annual Reports.
Where those reports drawn to the attention of the Home Secretary or to any other Minister, as Mrs. Seligman claims, and what action was taken in respect of them?
Secondly, there are the even more grave allegations by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. There is no doubt that, so important did she regard the allegations, that she personally wrote to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and saw him. Does the Secretary of State now accept that he made a serious error of judgment when he wrote back to the hon. Lady, dismissing her complaint in a letter in which he justified the lavish surroundings of that high-security unit as ones
which were designed to compensate to some extent for the regime inside the unit"?
Did the Home Secretary not compound that error of judgment in the same letter, when he denied that the prisoners had access to a workshop, when the hobbies room was the very workshop in which the getaway equipment was made? Did he take any action following those representations, and does he now accept the claim reportedly made by the hon. Lady in The Observer o f 4 December that, had the Home Secretary
acted on her warnings, the breakout might never have happened"?
Will the Home Secretary concede that the delphic wording of his proposal at the end of the statement, which caused much mocking laughter a moment ago, to set up a new unit outside the Prison Service, to strengthen Ministers' ability to supervise the service, amounts to an extraordinary admission that existing arrangements for holding the director of the Prison Service and himself to account have all but broken down? Is that not confirmed by paragraph 9.19 of the report, which says that the so-called "changed agenda", which is all about privatisation and performance indicators, has meant:
There was no space—
no time—
for senior people to spend time checking compliance with basic procedures."?
Is not this breakdown in accountability right up to Ministers also confirmed by paragraphs 9.28 and 9.29? At paragraph 9.28, Sir John Woodcock writes:
There exists at all levels within the Service some confusion as to the respective roles of Ministers, the Agency Headquarters, and individual Prison Governors.
In particular, the Enquiry has identified the difficulty of determining what is an operational matter and what is policy, leading to confusion as to where responsibility lies.
Is not the truth that, far from the report exonerating the Home Secretary, as he implied throughout his 46 paragraphs, it simply says that the issue of his accountability is
beyond the remit of the Enquiry to comment further"?


Against that background, and given all the other disasters over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has presided, will he now begin to acknowledge that his position is becoming increasingly untenable? Is not the truth of the situation that the report reveals a catalogue of incompetence and negligence on a truly monumental scale, which has been compounded today by buck passing by the Secretary of State, and by his failure properly to recognise his responsibility for this appalling state of affairs, in which the safety of many prison officers and the public was put at risk? Because of the Home Secretary's failure and that of the Prison Service, public confidence in the prison system has been woefully undermined.

Mr. Howard: Of course I entirely agree that we owe a debt to the prison officers and the police who apprehended the six men who attempted to escape from Whitemoor on 9 September. I acknowledged that debt in my statement, and I pay tribute again to them for their actions.
Of course I agree, as I made plain in my statement, that the state of affairs at Whitemoor which is disclosed in the report is wholly and completely unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I was warned in advance of that state of affairs, and he relied on two reports to support that allegation. I shall deal with each of them in turn.
On the point about the 1992 and 1993 reports from the boards of visitors, I did not see them—[Interruption.] I shall tell the House what the reports contained. The 1992 report made no reference to security whatsoever. The 1993 report made a reference to the fact that the large amount of possessions in cells at Whitemoor—not in the special secure unit, but in the rest of the prison—did impede searching. However, that report was accompanied by an addendum, which was submitted later that year, saying that the position had considerably improved. There was therefore no basis in either of the reports for a warning of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the correspondence I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). Indeed, the relevant part of that correspondence is included as an appendix to the Woodcock report. My hon. Friend will, I know, be the first to acknowledge that there is no reference to security in her letter, and that her concerns did not raise the question of security. She has indicated to me that the report in The Observer to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not an accurate report of what she had said.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the changed agenda in the Prison Service. There is indeed a changed agenda in the Prison Service: everything in the report—which is the product of a culture that has existed in the Prison Service for a very long time—underlines and reinforces the need for change. I am determined to ensure that the necessary changes in the Prison Service are made, and that steps to put right what went wrong are implemented; that is the task to which I intend to address myself.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the public will be appalled and astonished at what he has had to tell us today, but will equally feel that his immediate response when these matters were brought to his attention was perfectly adequate? Is he aware that the account he has given today

of the fuller response that will be delivered in the fulness of time, following Sir John Woodcock's report, will be welcomed by all?
There is obviously a temptation for Opposition Members to scoff and to demand my right hon. and learned Friend's resignation, but that is silly. What we need to do is improve the functioning and operation of the Prison Service, so that surveillance and supervision are better than they have ever been.
As for the list of recommendations for the future, does my right hon. and learned Friend not consider that the time has come to consider dividing visitors from prisoners far more effectively than they have been divided in the past? Is it not time to adopt the glass partitions used in other countries? It is clear that most of the material got into the prison from outside; it ought to have been stopped, and it must be stopped in the future.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his introductory remarks.
Sir John Woodcock considered the possibility of making all visits to special secure units closed visits. It is dealt with in his report, which states that that is the only way in which complete security can be achieved. Sir John acknowledges that other factors must be taken into account. I have decided that the appropriate course is to refer the matter to Sir John Learmont, as part of his general review of prison security.
My hon. and learned Friend has raised an important point that merits serious attention. It will receive that attention from Sir John Learmont.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is clear from the report that a previous Minister of State sanctioned the temporary abandoning of thorough searching; that it is clear that dedicated search teams were not used because of a lack of resources set aside for the purpose; and that it is clear that recommendations of previous security inquiries simply were not implemented? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that Ministers were not asking the most obvious questions about security in prisons with which they were supposed to be familiar?
How is it possible that, after all this—and after the sight of a prison being run according to the convenience of its inmates—no one is resigning, the Home Secretary refuses to take responsibility and the director general of the Prison Service is awarded a substantial bonus?

Mr. Howard: Let me deal with those three points in turn.
First, the retrospective sanctioning of the temporary abandonment of rubdown searches was put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold)—on, I believe, the very day on which the 1992 general election was called—in the context of a review of search and security measures in special secure units. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, having had an opportunity to read the report, instructions were given for rubdown searching to be recommenced at Whitemoor and other special secure units before the Whitemoor unit was reopened.
Secondly, it is not true that the recommendation for dedicated search teams was not implemented because of resource implications or anything of that nature. Governors were consulted about it, and were left to decide


the extent to which priority should be given to specialist search teams in that context. The decision, however, was not taken on resource grounds.
On the right hon. Gentleman's third point, it is true that I am responsible for all the Home Office's activities and for the Prison Service. I am accountable to Parliament for the Prison Service. The director general is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Prison Service.
The bonus to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was paid in respect of the year that ended in March 1994. It was paid in accordance with particular indicators that were specified in the director general's contract, including the number of escapes, and that year saw a considerable reduction in the number of escapes. The director general has agreed that there is no question of a bonus during the current year—[Laughter.]

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The report reveals a shocking story, and no one who has been connected with the Prison Service at any level can feel anything other than shame at the position that it reveals. I am sure from what my right hon. and learned Friend said, however, that he will agree that the energy, effectiveness and sheer personal courage of the officers on the spot who recaptured four of the escapees show a different but equally revealing picture of prison staff.
Will he also accept from me, as the Minister who oversaw the transition from department to agency, that he is wise to establish a new unit to keep him more systematically informed of developments in the prison system? Will he, however, take especial care to ensure that the unit works in a way that clarifies and promotes the sensible division and devolution of responsibility for operational matters in what is an extremely complex service, where the reins can never be kept in a single pair of hands effectively, however much Opposition Members pretend that they can?

Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the prison officers who were responsible for the speedy apprehension of four of the six inmates who attempted to escape from Whitemoor on 9 September. In considering the basis on which the unit is to work, I shall carefully bear in mind the remarks that he has made, coming as they do from someone with considerable experience in these matters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I deprecate introductory remarks during questions. We are here to question the statement and the Home Secretary. As the House saw, a number of hon. Members rose to ask questions. It will be impossible for me to call all of them if they make long statements and introductory remarks. I must now have brisk questions and brisk answers.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Home Secretary accept that his statement sounds more like scenes from a "Carry On" film on prisons than a statement on a high security prison? Having accepted that a Minister was responsible for scaling down searches, will the Home Secretary tell us why searches were not reintroduced until

after the prisoners had escaped? What was the cost of the phone bill? Having considered everything, will he tell us why he did not consider resigning from his position?

Mr. Howard: I told the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that instructions were given that rubdown searches should be resumed before the Whitemoor special secure unit was reopened. It was not until the publication of the Woodcock report that it became clear that they had not been resumed, in contravention of those instructions, which were clear, specific and absolutely explicit.
They were no doubt one of the things that Sir John Woodcock had in mind when he concluded, in the passage that I read out, that
what the Prison Service needs to do most of all is to comply with its own written instructions.
That is the truth about the searches. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I set out in my statement the steps that I took in the immediate aftermath of the attempt to escape on 9 September as to the need to implement all instructions relating to searches and other security measures across the prison system.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that Sir John Woodcock's conclusion would have been substantially different had he been asked to produce his report a year earlier? Is not the most disturbing part about the report the fact that it reveals a culture in our prisons where everything is done for the benefit of the prisoners—or, if not for them, for the benefit of the prison officers?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that there is a real distinction between what the report reveals and what happens in all other prisons throughout the country? If that is not the case, what is my right hon. and learned Friend going to do about the conduct of the Prison Service and responsibility for it?

Mr. Howard: There is a great deal of truth in my right hon. Friend's sombre analysis. The extent to which the regime and the failures at Whitemoor exist in other prisons is precisely what Sir John Learmont's review will examine. That review will indicate what action needs to be taken beyond the 64 recommendations of the Woodcock report which I have accepted, and the three further measures beyond that which I said that I have put in hand. It is precisely the analysis behind my right hon. Friend's question that has led me to establish Sir John Learmont's review.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Home Secretary considered resigning?

Mr. Howard: I have looked very carefully at what others in my position have done in this type of situation. In 1983, a number of terrorist prisoners escaped from the Maze prison in Northern Ireland. Many of them got away. At the time, my noble Friend Lord Prior said:
If I had felt that ministerial responsibility was such that in this case I should have resigned, I certainly should have done so. It would be a matter for resignation if the … inquiry showed that what happened was the result of some act of policy that was my responsibility, or that I failed to implement something that I had been asked to implement, or should have implemented. In that case, I should resign."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c.23-4.]


I have carefully considered Lord Prior's observations. I think that he set out the right approach. I have endeavoured to follow that approach and I have reached the same conclusion that he reached and, indeed, the conclusion reached by the right hon. and noble Gentleman Lord Jenkins of Hillhead after the escape of George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs.

Lady Olga Maitland: My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that, like all hon. Members, I am concerned about the report, especially following my own visit to Whitemoor. Nevertheless, does he agree that the report makes it clear that it is the Prison Service which is to blame, not him?

Mr. Howard: I have announced to the House that I am setting up a disciplinary inquiry to see what evidence exists that would enable disciplinary proceedings or other action to be taken at all levels in the Prison Service so that those who were responsible on a day-to-day basis for the appalling state of affairs at Whitemoor can be brought to account.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Did the Home Secretary share my difficulty when reading the two reports in deciding whether they were talking about the same prison? In other words, why did Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons say that he considered the prison to be "virtually impregnable"? Why did he decide that he would make "no recommendations" whatever to the Home Secretary? Why did he recommend the scaling down of certain key security measures, such as searching visitors, and terminating the use of guard dogs?

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman will understand my difficulty in answering that question. I can tell him that the recommendations in the chief inspector's report on the scaling down of staff in the secure unit and the elimination of the use of dogs will not be implemented. The view that Whitemoor was virtually impregnable was widely held within the Prison Service and widely held by the prison officers at Whitemoor. It contributed substantially to the regime that the Woodcock report makes clear existed there.

Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although there may be a cessation of violence at present in Northern Ireland, there will be no cessation of the attempts by IRA terrorists to try to break out of prisons wherever they may be? As it is a well-established practice of the IRA to seek psychological domination over prison officers, whether by intimidation or by "honey traps" outside the prison, which is also a well established practice in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that every prison governor concerned sees the importance of one particular recommendation in the report, especially for the safety of prison officers themselves, which is the frequent rotation of prison officers in their duties?

Mr. Howard: Yes, I certainly will. My right hon. Friend, with all his experience of these matters, is absolutely right to draw attention to that especially dangerous feature of the

situation at Whitemoor and elsewhere. He is absolutely right to say that it is essential that that recommendation is drawn to the attention of all governors.

Mr. Greville Janner: When the Home Secretary re-examines security measures, will he look at the disgraceful overcrowding in prisons, which results in prison officers having to look after prisoners in impossible circumstances? At Leicester prison, the number of people certified as the normal accounting level is 194. I am told that today, the prison has 345 inmates, and that there have been seven suicides in the past year or so. What does the Home Secretary intend to do about the overcrowding which results from his Government's scandalous failure to deal with prison conditions all these years?

Mr. Howard: There is no suggestion that there was any connection between overcrowding and what happened at Whitemoor. Moreover, there has been a substantial reduction in overcrowding in the prison system in recent years. At the beginning of 1987, there were 5,000 prisoners in our prison system who were three to a cell designed for one. Now there is none. There has been a substantial reduction in overcrowding in our system. There is no basis for any suggestion that there was a connection between that and Whitemoor.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Given what is obviously a bad business, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Learmont inquiry, which he has set up with admirable promptness, is the largest inquiry of its kind since the Mountbatten inquiry, which was set up with equally admirable promptness by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead? Contrary to the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), that inquiry was less than 30 years ago.

Mr. Howard: I can confirm that point to my right hon. Friend. I emphasise that the Learmont inquiry will have two purposes. First, it will look at security across the prison system generally and secondly, it will specifically report in a year's time on the progress that has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Woodcock report. I have undertaken, subject only to security considerations, to publish the report of Sir John Learmont's committee in a year's time.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that he has been warned time and time again by the Home Affairs Select Committee and various other bodies of the necessity of installing appropriate electronic search equipment at Brixton, for example, where it was installed after the gun had arrived, and at other places throughout the prison system? That, coupled with the continuing deterioration in conditions and standards for prison officers through decreasing training, overwork, over-hours and decreasing numbers, has contributed to the appalling state that we now see in our prison system.

Mr. Howard: No, I do not accept that. There was equipment at Whitemoor, although the report criticises the way in which it was used. As to the hours worked by prison officers, there has been an enormous reduction in the number of hours worked on average by every prison officer in recent years.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that an overwhelming majority of the public cannot understand


why hardened villains should have any contact with visitors other than through bars and under supervision? Does he agree that, if drugs or weapons of any sort should be discovered in a prison, all visits should be stopped until the matter is cleared up? Will the Learmont inquiry be able to address those matters?

Mr. Howard: The Learmont inquiry will certainly be able to address those aspects to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention which deal with security. Certainly with regard to dangerous prisoners, I am specifically asking for Sir John Learmont's view and certainly, the inquiry will address the possibility of identifying guns in prison. Indeed, it is now the case that the kind of investigation which takes place in the few instances when guns are found in prisons involves the suspension of visits.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Minister recall any event about which a statement was made to the House which was bizarre as this, other than the Canadian mailbag fiasco at Wandsworth prison? Is there no honour left in politics at all? Does he accept no responsibility whatever? Will he tell us something about the shopping that prisoners have been doing? Was it with their Barclaycards? If he is refusing to resign, will he at least claim to be guilty but insane?

Mr. Howard: I have already dealt with the question of responsibility. It is perhaps an interesting reflection on standards—a charge made by the Opposition very frequently—and perhaps relevant that, when there was the escape from the Maze to which I referred earlier, the Labour shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did not call for the resignation of my right hon. Friend Lord Prior, and when there was the escape from Wormwood Scrubs, the Conservative shadow Home Secretary did not call for the resignation of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. And on both those occasions, the prisoners actually got away.

Dame Angela Rumbold: May I take the opportunity to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for setting the record straight on my behalf? May I also urge him, in the light of my experience as a Minister with responsibility for prisons, to look very closely at determining the roles of Ministers, the agency headquarters and the prison governors, even before his special unit is set up? It seems from what Sir John Woodcock has said that clarification is urgently needed, so that people who are at the grass roots—the prison governors and prison officers—know precisely to whom they should be responsible.

Mr. Howard: I am not entirely certain that I agree with my right hon. Friend about that. I am not under any confusion as to the line of command and the allocation of responsibility. It is set out very clearly in the framework document. The director general is not under any confusion either about the relationship, which is set out very clearly in the framework document. It is the duty of those in the Prison Service to comply with the instructions which they are given. So I do not entirely go along with my right hon. Friend on that point.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Home Secretary aware that Wandsworth prison is in my constituency, and therefore I have close association with boards of visitors in many prisons? Is he aware that the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)

about the role of the former chairlady of Whitemoor board of visitors and the concerns that she expressed will not been accepted by her and will not be accepted by that board of visitors? Nor will it be accepted by boards of visitors throughout the country, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was repeatedly told by those boards of visitors of the very deep—

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cox: It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head. He was told repeatedly of the deep concern of the board of visitors. Will he give the House an assurance that any prison governor who is concerned about security will have whatever funding he or she needs to bring security up to standard?

Mr. Howard: I dealt earlier, and rather fully, with the contents of the reports from the board of visitors. That is the basis on which such allegations should be tested. I can tell the House that the implementation of the 64 recommendations in the Woodcock report will not be inhibited by any resource constraint.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the principal conclusion of the Woodcock report was that the Prison Service failed systematically to observe its own rules? Is he able to give me, the House and constituents throughout the country a categorical assurance that the Learmont inquiry will address itself to the problems of running our prisons, that he will ensure in future that there is no further intimidation of prison officers by dangerous category A prisoners, and that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has recommended, officers will be rotated regularly?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to those features. The purpose of the 64 recommendations in the Woodcock report is to achieve the objectives to which my hon. Friend referred. The Learmont inquiry will consider what more needs to be done across the Prison Service. The purpose of the these exercises will be to ensure that there is never again a recurrence of the events and the situation at Whitemoor.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The problem for the Home Secretary is the scale of the scandal. Does he not have responsibility for putting in place policies and procedures to ensure that scandals in prisons on such a scale cannot happen, and has he not failed in that responsibility? He should accept the consequences of that.

Mr. Howard: If there were any evidence that my policies were in any way responsible for what happened, the hon. Gentleman would be right. But there is not a word of criticism of policy in the Woodcock report. Nor is there any basis for the suggestion that my policies were in any way responsible for what happened.

Mr. Edward Garner: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his frank statement? I ask him to assure the House that nothing said to the Woodcock inquiry will inhibit the bringing of criminal,


civil or disciplinary proceedings, should the Yardley inquiry or anyone else find that there is evidence that makes it appropriate to bring such charges.

Mr. Howard: Yes. I think that it was right of Sir John Woodcock, whose principal objective was to get at the truth of what happened, to say that the evidence which was given to him would not be used as the basis of disciplinary proceedings. That does not mean that the disciplinary investigation that I have set in hand will be unable to pursue these matters. It will pursue them, and if evidence is revealed that would justify disciplinary proceedings or other action against anyone at any level in the Prison Service, that action will ensue.

Mr. Derek Enright: If the Home Secretary is as eager as he claims to change the culture of the Prison Service, will he, as a guarantee of good faith, demand that the director general of the Prison Service pays back the £35,000 performance bonus which he granted him last year?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of the Prison Service during that year, and especially the substantial reduction in the number of escapes that took place during that year, he will have cause to reflect on his question.

Mr. Michael Alison: My right hon. and learned Friend is clearly right to opt for a tougher and harder internal regime in the category A prisons. In so far as this induces among resourceful but violent and desperate prisoners the attitude of "death or glory", is not the implementation of his tough regime something of an exercise in sophistication as well as determination? Does he agree that the subtleties of constraining those desperate men are scarcely appreciated in respect of the comments that we have heard from Labour Members?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my right hon. Friend's last point. In addition, I agree that one should never underestimate the difficulty of having in place an effective regime. The task on which the Prison Service is engaged is very difficult. It was described in a previous inquiry as one of particular complexity. My right hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to those aspects of it.

Mr. George Howarth: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the reason why he has not been directly criticised in the report is that, as the report implies in paragraph 9.29, it was beyond the inquiry's remit? Is it not true that the Home Secretary himself determined the inquiry's remit? It is therefore hardly surprising that he was not directly criticised. Will the Home Secretary address the criticism in paragraph 9.28—
There exists at all levels within the Service some confusion as to the respective roles of Ministers, the Agency Headquarters and individual Prison Governors. In particular, the Enquiry has identified the difficulty of determining what is an operational matter and what is policy, leading to confusion as to where responsibility lies"?
Surely, as Home Secretary in a Government who have been in power for 15 years, it lacks credibility to say that the Home Secretary was not responsible for what happened. Has not the confusion in responsibility arisen

directly from arrangements which the Home Secretary put in place, or is he not now even responsible for his own mistakes?

Mr. Howard: I have already dealt very fully with paragraph 9.28 of the report. I am not under any confusion about the respective roles of Ministers, the agency headquarters or individual prison governors, and nor is the director general. As for individual prison governors and others in the service, it is their responsibility to comply with the instructions that they are given.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is entirely wrong about the report's remit. It was not in any way beyond Sir John Woodcock's remit to criticise me were he of a mind to do so.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Look at paragraph 9.29.

Mr. Howard: Paragraph 9.29 says nothing of the kind. If the hon. Lady, who is mouthing inanities from a sedentary position, were to read the report, she would understand that paragraph 9.29 says nothing of the kind. Sir John Woodcock's report was very wide in its terms of reference and very wide in its remit. It was entirely within his remit, if he wished to do so, to make criticisms of me. The fact is that he did not do so, and the Opposition cannot bring themselves to accept that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We will now move on.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Ian Phares Pearson Esq., for Dudley, West.

Orders of the Day — Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 20th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 10th January.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. John Biffen: I should like to detain the House for a few moments to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House some of the problems arising from the provisional revenue support grant for the county of Shropshire. The matter will be taken further forward on 3 January when a delegation from the county council, which I will accompany, will discuss the matter with a Minister from the Department of the Environment.
The provisional standard spending assessment and the level of rate capping that has been proposed is causing great anxiety in the county. I recently had the opportunity to meet senior officials of the county to discuss the matter, accompanied by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I have also been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who has naturally taken a keen interest in developments which will as acutely affect his area of Shropshire as my own.
The Shropshire problem has a certain unique characteristic because it compounded by previous difficulties, in that between 1990 and 1991 and 1994 and 1995, Shropshire had the lowest increase of all counties in SSA and between 1991 and 1992 and 1994 and 1995 it had the next lowest capping increase. To that inherited pattern of difficulty has been added the current stringent proposal for the 1995–96 settlement.
The figures at the heart of the problem will be discussed in detail on 3 January and I do not wish to detain the House by arguing about them now. At heart, the issue is a proposed permitted spending increase of about £0.8 million or less than 0.5 per cent. when the county judges that to maintain its current spending would require an increase of £14.8 million. The shortfall of £14 million is equivalent to 5.8 per cent. of the budget.
Those are formidable figures and I would greatly appreciate it if my right hon. Friend would relay to the Department of the Environment my great anxiety that they represent a gap—as judged by the DOE and the county council—which cannot be reconciled, with any degree of equity, with the services provided in Shropshire.
Education will be first in line for cuts, of course, given the enormous difference in the budget, but it goes much further than the services covered by statutory obligation. Those where the county council spending is to some extent discretionary are the subject of the greatest anxiety, because the providers see themselves without any statutory protection for their work. That is particularly true of youth services, and officials in those areas have made their views known to me in the most compelling fashion at my weekend surgeries.
I appreciate that according to the conventions of the House contributions to the Adjournment debate are the more welcome—and, I hope, the more persuasive—the briefer they are. I see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House nodding in agreement, but I am not sure to which part of my proposition.
My speech is made ahead of the meeting on 3 January and I make an appeal that that occasion should not be used to rehearse the time-honoured positions of the combatants across the fiscal field, but to discuss the hard practicalities of public spending and the protective and legitimate role that public spending performs.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Before we adjourn for the Christmas recess, I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to see issues that affect their constituencies resolved.
It is proposed substantially to increase tolls on the Severn bridge from 1 January next year. They will rise to £3.70 for a car, by 60p to £7.40 for small goods vehicles and by £1 to £11.10 for lorries. Those figures represent an increase of 177 per cent. since the bridge was privatised in 1992 and are a blatant example of the unacceptable face of privatisation.

Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend may be surprised that I wish to intervene, but I am grateful to him for allowing me to do so. Is he aware that if the amendment in the next debate is not carried—it may not be called—this will be the last debate when Members will be able to raise matters on the motion for the Adjournment? Perhaps Members will bear that in mind. When they realise how important this debate is, they may wish to stay in the Chamber and ensure that such debates continue.

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate the relevance of my hon. Friend's remarks.
Severn bridge tolls are a scandal. The so-called Anglo-French consortium is simply bleeding Wales dry. South Wales still suffers from heavy unemployment. Black spots have been caused through closures and redundancies—Ebbw Vale, Merthyr and Cynon Valley spring to mind, but even Newport on the eastern seaboard with favourable geographical advantages is put at a distinct disadvantage by toll charges in its quest for new jobs.

Mr. Douglas French: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one reason why the tolls are so high is that they are charged only for traffic going in one direction?

Mr. Hughes: That is an irrelevant intervention. They must still be paid, whether they are paid only by vehicles coming into Wales, as is currently the case. It still amounts to doubling the charge.
In a recent survey of companies, Bristol came out as the most attractive area for new enterprises to relocate. Newport, just 20 miles further along the M4 motorway, came 28th. The toll charges are a barrier to industrial development. We have the labour, prime land and some kind of grants available, yet the Government have sold south Wales short. When will the Secretary of State for Wales speak up against the iniquitous toll system?
I received a letter dated 5 December from Mr. Sandy Blair, chief executive of Newport borough council, who wrote to me in his capacity as secretary of Gwent District Councils Association. He said that concern had been expressed about yet further increases in Severn bridge toll charges and asked me to make the strongest possible representations in Parliament regarding them. That is what I am trying to do this afternoon.
Mr. D.B.H. Colley, director-general of the Road Haulage Association, wrote to me on 23 November saying that road hauliers were incensed by the electronic tag system introduced in October 1993. He said that the Anglo-French Consortium had infringed the Severn Bridges Act 1992 by abolishing
the discount of between 10 and 20 per cent. which applied to the pre-payment tickets. Under the tag scheme, savings will only accrue when more than 20 crossings per vehicle are made monthly by using a season pass. In addition, a refundable deposit of £30 is to be made for each tag, which is not transferable between vehicles.
Mr. Colley tells me that the new system, too, was introduced without consultation and that the following major issues detrimentally affect road hauliers: first, a requirement for a £30 deposit on each tag; secondly, the need for each vehicle to have its own individual tag; thirdly, the replacement of the discounted ticket system by a non-discounted electronic tag, except where that is used as a season pass by the same vehicle.
By comparison, the Dartford River Crossing Company Ltd. has no tag charge. Its tags are interchangeable between vehicles of a similar classification and there is also a substantial discount of 7.5 per cent. for tag holders. Under the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988, tolls increased by less than 10 per cent., and since privatization in 1989 they have increased by approximately 33 per cent.When we compare those figures with the 177 per cent. increase in toll charges on the Severn bridge since privatisation in 1992, we must ask why there is so much discrimination against Wales and why the Secretary of State for Wales is not speaking up for Welsh economic interests.
The Severn bridge is the key access point linking England and Wales. It is only a short stretch of the M4 motorway. A constituent of mine in Redwick, Mr. Jerry Jones, a major road haulage contractor, pointed out that it is normally a criminal offence to stop on a motorway, and I understand the point that he made. There is now persistent protest in the Gloucester area about heavy lorries travelling through villages to avoid paying tolls. Public meetings have been held and civil disobedience has been openly advocated. What I fail to understand, however, is where the west country Conservative Members were when the pernicious Severn Bridges Bill was being pushed through Parliament two or three years ago. Labour Members opposed the legislation, but there are fewer than a handful of them in the west country—although I venture to suggest that after the next general election there are likely to be considerably more.
The regular defence of Severn bridge tolls is that the money is needed to build a second crossing, but that is just a load of eyewash when we consider the massive motoring taxation revenue that the Government receive. Some of that could surely be used to ease the burden of Severn bridge toll charges.
On 2 March this year I introduced a Bill to amend sections 9 and 10 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992. Had that proposal passed through Parliament, it would have had the effect of freezing tolls at the then existing level. The Government should now introduce such a measure.
Contracts that are negotiated can also be renegotiated, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when he was deputy Leader of the Opposition, said in south Wales at the time of the Monmouth by-election.
I warn the Government that the issue of Severn bridge tolls will not go away: it is a running sore, and privatisation of the Severn bridge was a madcap scheme that south Wales could well have done without.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The House might forgive me for not following the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) over the Severn bridge, but I should like to say how much I support the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). Staffordshire is in a similar position to Shropshire, and I wish my right hon. Friend every success on 3 January because, in battling for neglected shire counties, he will do a service to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I was tempted to speak about the apparent inadequacy of the inspection system in prisons and the apparent incompetence of the Director General of the Prison Service. Many similar subjects tempt me, but I have an opportunity to discuss once again a subject that I have brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House many times—the continually deteriorating position in the former Yugoslavia.
It is not to our credit as a House that we have devoted so little time to debating the most serious crisis in Europe since the second world war. I shall not weary the House by repeating arguments that I have previously advanced, save to say that I have, for more than three years, sought whenever possible to mention that issue, and I believe that, if the powers that be had heeded the call for effective action at the time that Vukovar was being razed to the ground and Dubrovnik bombarded, we might not have had to witness the appalling tragedy of Bosnia.
When the history of the past three years comes to be written, no one will emerge from it with any great credit. There has been an apparent unwillingness to grasp the seriousness of the situation. Most of all, there has been an inability to bring home to the Serbs the fact that territorial aggrandisement by conquest, and ethnic cleansing and all the barbarities and bestialities that go with that, are unacceptable in a civilised world. That they should be taking place at a time when we are about to commemorate 50 years since the end of the second world war is an indictment of us all.
I wholly exonerate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has been courtesy itself, and who has met me and my fellow officers of the all-party group on many occasions, from anything other than the most honourable of motives. However, it is a great pity that the western powers especially have not been able to demonstrate a greater coherence of resolve and a more forceful determination in the past three years.
It would be tragic for the present and an appalling portent for the future if a gang of hoodlums, under the direction of some of the most evil men who have strutted the political stage in modern times, were to be able to destroy the credibility of the United Nations and of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass on my


words to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and to give them the following message.
Of course we recognise the conspicuous bravery and skill of British troops, and we are all proud of what they have achieved in appallingly difficult circumstances. Of course we do not call in question the motives or the honour of the people who lead our nation or the nations of the west. However, time is running out, arid it is essential that, now that even Milosevic, who began this appalling adventure three years ago, accepts the contact group's peace plan, every possible effort is made to ensure that the Bosnian Serbs are brought to heel. It would be tragic, disgraceful and disgusting if the Bosnian Serbs got away with their ill and brutally gotten gains. I do not think that there is a Member in the House who could not agree with that sentiment.
Time and again, people talk and the BBC talks—I have had occasion to write to Mr. Birt about it this week—about the Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims are about as fanatical, as someone said on the radio this morning, as most people who identify their religion as "C of E" on their passports in this country. However, the legitimate Bosnian Government are not wholly Muslim. They are supported by Croats and by many Serbs. Not so long ago, the House received a deputation of Bosnian Serbs who support their legitimately recognised Government.
We are witnessing the extinction of a state that we willingly recognised, which has a seat at the United Nations, and which is therefore a member of the community of nations. The United Nations resolutions have been flagrantly flouted and violated time without number, first by the Serbs under Milosevic and the Bosnian Serbs, and more latterly almost exclusively by the Bosnian Serbs. It would be an appalling end to the year and beginning of a new one if they were now allowed to flout the Contact group's resolution.
I urge one or two courses of action. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will feel able to pass on my words to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
I have said many times that it would be sensible for this country to take an initiative by summoning a summit meeting of the leaders of the four nations principally involved—Britain, France and the United States, all key members of NATO and of the United Nations Security Council, and Russia, which has many problems of its own, as we are reminded daily, but which also has a significant part to play in that part of the world and which is, after all, a member of the contact group. The situation in the former Yugoslavia is so serious as to merit the calling of a special summit meeting, rather than the addition of the subject to the agenda of a prefixed summit.
It is important that the message should go out from any such meeting that, if there is any further violation of safe areas—what a hollow concept that has proved to be in the past few months—the full might of the United Nations agency NATO, which is the way in which NATO is acting at the moment, should be directed at those people who are violating. After all, the Bosnian Government have accepted the plan. I agree that they perhaps behaved rashly and foolishly in Bihac—although I understand why—a few weeks ago, and I would not exonerate anyone

from the type of resolution that I now advocate. I should like a surrender of all heavy weapons into international control.
I would like to see the exercise of the United Nations mandate for a period of 12 months while the final details of the contact plan and the map are sorted out. I would like us to behave as an international community with the same resolution to any violation during that 12 months as we behaved toward Saddam Hussein. Would that we had finished him off, but that is another story.
The matter is extremely serious and time is short. As we move towards 1995, we are in a situation that is in many ways strangely reminiscent of 1914-15. Of course history does not repeat itself, but it teaches us lessons. We could be within not just months but weeks of a full-scale Balkan war, with all the horrors that that implies and would entail—a Balkan war that would have on one side Turkey and, on another side, Greece, two NATO members. There could be a Balkan war that could suck into the centre of Europe—the heart of Europe; a phrase that is often used in other contexts—Muslim fundamentalist fighters to fill any vacuum left by those who might withdraw.
My final word to my right hon. Friend is this: there should be an absolute declaration and a total commitment not to withdraw the forces that are there at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed commendable reluctance to contemplate such a course, and I applaud and admire him for that, but one must go even further than that. To withdraw, leaving our baggage, our weaponry and a vacuum would be the most ignominious of retreats and defeats for the principles of honesty and decency which have been so trampled upon so frequently over the past three years.
I am sorry to have to direct the attention of the House to such a sombre matter in a season of good will, but good will is a commodity that has been conspicuously lacking in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia. When we return to our families to enjoy, I hope, our Christmases and to prepare for a new year, we should spare a thought for the desolation in that land and for the ruined hopes and the shattered futures. We should recognise that, if we are going to commemorate the events of 1945 with any real credibility next year, we cannot have our commemorations accompanied by a pall of smoke over a country in Europe.

Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House, because, earlier this afternoon, the people of Newbury were betrayed once again. There is no other way of describing the appalling news that the A34 bypass around Newbury, or at best, has been postponed for at least a year or, at worst, will never be built. Yet again, Newbury is left suffering from the horrendous traffic problems which have been our lot for years and years.
Of course, I welcome the Government's announcement today that they have at last recognised that it is fatuous to go on building more new roads instead of investing in public transport and doing up the present structure, but, if ever there was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water, this must be that case.
Why have the Government failed to realise that there is all the difference in the world between, on the one hand, creating entirely new roads and thus encouraging entirely


new journeys to be undertaken by car, and, on the other hand, removing already existing roads from the centre of some of Britain's loveliest old towns and villages? Interestingly, there are some signs that the Government have recognised that very point.
The Secretary of State, in his announcement today, said:
Our priority now must be to make the most effective use of the existing network.
But that is exactly what the Newbury by-pass is intended to do. The Secretary of State announced:
Our priority is road-building to remove congestion and pollution blackspots.
But that is exactly what the Newbury by-pass is intended to do. He announced that he wants to remove major bottlenecks because, as he says:
They cause congestion and pollution, and damage the economic well-being of the country. They also cause frustration and diversion on to smaller more unsuitable roads.
Of course he is right, and that is exactly why he should have authorised the earliest possible start to the building of the Newbury by-pass.
Newbury is being destroyed by traffic. The problem is that Newbury contains the one remaining section of the country's main north-south route between Southampton and Glasgow which, so far, has not been built up to well-nigh motorway standard. Because the rest of the route is so good, traffic is attracted to that route, even if drivers know that they are guaranteed to be held up in Newbury.
Delaying the Newbury by-pass will do nothing to reduce the traffic load on that road. Instead, it will simply mean more deaths on what is already a notoriously dangerous stretch, and many more children suffering from asthma, with all the attendant problems that that brings. Recent figures have shown that children living near the A34 suffer three times the level of noxious gases and other pollutants compared with children living further away. Businesses, too, will suffer as fewer shoppers are prepared to use Newbury because of the traffic queues.
It is not a new problem. It is not something for which the Government could use the excuse that they did not really know why the by-pass is necessary. It has been going on for years and years. Even if we discount the proposals that were made as far back as 1936 and again in 1965, even the modern proposals date from the early 1980s. Indeed, following traffic studies and public consultation over a number of years, the Department of Transport published its preferred route as early as 1985—almost 10 years ago.
It has now been shown that the A34 through Newbury, linking as it does the M3 at Winchester with the M40 north of Oxford, carries nearly double the percentage of heavy goods vehicles carried by the average trunk road in our country, and it carries them straight through the centre of Newbury. Traffic volumes in Newbury have already reached a level which, in the 1988 public inquiry, were not expected until 2009. Newbury has become a notorious bottleneck, with queues which can extend miles in each direction, and lorries and cars spewing out their fumes and noxious gases all over the gardens, schools and parks where our children play.
Local businesses, not to mention the emergency services, find that it can take an hour or more to travel just a mile or two across Newbury. That is just not acceptable. The environment in our lovely old market town is being wilfully destroyed.
Let me remind the Minister for Railways and Roads what he and his colleagues have said. In a letter to me of 27 October this year, the Minister said:
I recently visited Newbury and saw for myself the pressing need for a bypass. The tail back of traffic was nearly back to the M4 … a bypass is needed to remove the noisy smelly traffic from the town.
That is what the Minister himself said. The Highways Agency, in a letter dated 4 August, wrote:
The need for an improvement of this stretch of the trunk road, which carries a high percentage of goods vehicles, was identified as long ago as 1971 and the requirement is now urgent.
The Minister for Transport in London, in a letter as recently as 28 November, said:
By-passes often bring considerable environmental benefits to the villages, towns and cities from where traffic is removed.
The Highways Agency, again in a letter dated 28 October, wrote:
Without this much needed new road, delay and congestion in Newbury will continue to increase.
It is not just the destruction of Newbury which will make the people of Newbury so angry about this decision; it is also the way they have been promised again and again that the by-pass is on the point of being built. The Highways Agency wrote to me on 1 November to say:
Your constituent will be pleased to know that tenders for the construction of the bypass have now been received and are currently being assessed. We expect to be in a position to appoint a contractor very shortly for a start of construction as soon as possible this winter.
On 19 October, the Department of Transport confirmed to a local newspaper:
There is no change in the road priority programme that was set out in April and Newbury is at the top and already has funding. It is going ahead as planned.
During the by-election in May of last year, the Conservative party literature argued that local Conservatives, led by Judith Chaplin and Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, my predecessors, had already won the A34 by-pass, and that it would
substantially reduce congestion through our towns and villages. It will be a major boost for West Berkshire businesses and local people alike. Building it is a great step toward solving traffic problems in Newbury. The Conservative Government has given the go-ahead and found the money.
So much for the Conservative claim. As I said at the beginning, Newbury has been betrayed by this Government, according to whose arguments the A34 by-pass should have been given the highest priority. Instead, it has been cut out of the programme, overturning all the promises made by the Conservatives over many years.
In Newbury we have grown used to Conservatives who break promises, but seldom can so many promises made over so many years by so many different members of that party have been broken so suddenly and recklessly. The people of Newbury will be furious at this cynical betrayal of their hopes.

Sir James Kilfedder: A week ago I attended, as I do every year, the carol service arranged and presented by the pupils and staff of Clifton special


school, in my constituency. Parents and relatives of pupils of different religions come together each year in one of the major churches of Bangor to celebrate the birth of Christ.
This year, the service was held in St. Comgall's church, and the Salvation Army junior band led the praise. It was a touching and emotional event, because the pupils at the school, all of whom participated in the service, either have profound and multiple learning difficulties or exhibit challenging behaviour. I pay tribute to the principal and staff of the school, who are completely dedicated to their pupils, some of whom suffer from grave mental and physical handicaps.
I am also deeply affected by the manifest dedication of the parents, who shower their love, time and efforts on their handicapped children. For me, this annual carol service, organised by Clifton special school, signals the start of the Christmas season. For that season, if it is about anything, is about the misfortunes of others and about giving without restraint.
It would be natural to assume in such poignant and dire circumstances that every help would be given to the school and parents and especially to the boys and girls. Unfortunately, it is not. In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find places for the school's leavers in training and resource centres or in intensive support units. Failure to find a place for a student, or finding one only at the last moment, causes unnecessary and terrible stress for the school and the parents. Yet it seems that this intolerable situation is set to worsen.
The school received a letter in October from the North Down and Ards community trust. In it the manager apologised and assured the principal of the school that he had
done everything possible to keep his line management informed of the shortages with regard to day care places, particularly the Intensive Support Unit.
In a letter sent recently by the principal of the special school, Mrs. Ray Cunningham, to the chief executive of the health and care centre, Newtonards, she informed him that the officer in charge of the Ards training and resources centre had confirmed that no place was available in an intensive support unit for an 18 year-old pupil who was due to leave the school. She stated:
Needless to say, both the parents and members of staff at Clifton special school were devastated at this news, particularly as the boy has very special needs.
She added:
It is essential that a place be available for him as soon as he leaves the school.
I believe that, as a result of all the pressure that that lady brought to bear, and after lengthy deliberation, a temporary place will be found for the boy. That is all wholly unacceptable. The principal of the school has told me that social services have been given, by the school, a minimum five-year projected list of needs, together with a simple profile of each student, including the dates when each boy or girl will be leaving the school. Management can thus anticipate the number of places required and know whether any special needs attach to each place. The principal of the school has emphasised that the situation is so serious that all plans for induction courses for pupils have had to be abandoned, as the school has not been guaranteed places early enough to set such courses in motion.
Apparently the board has in mind a project that entails building another intensive support unit in the Bangor area. I say "in mind" because I have had no assurance when or even if it will be built. The places are desperately needed now, even if it is to be built in a year or two.
All decent people will be scandalised by what is going on. They will feel that the parents of children with special needs or with mental or physical handicaps should be given special attention by those responsible for their children's further care. I therefore demand that the Government intervene to ensure that the trust provides the places that are vital for these students and for their loving, hard-pressed parents.

Mr. Tony Banks: I believe that the House should not adjourn for the Christmas recess until we have had the opportunity to discuss county hall on the other side of the river. It was built as a home for the London county council and paid for by Londoners. It was built for the local and strategic governance of London. Following the abolition of the Greater London Council in 1986—an act that still smacks far more of political spite and personal malice on the part of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, than of a respect for the needs and wishes of Londoners—county hall was used by a number of bodies, including the Inner London education authority. On the abolition of ILEA in 1990, county hall became empty, and so it has remained ever since.
What worries me is how the building has become the centre of what one can only describe as a fiasco bordering on the scandalous. As I have suggested in the House before, the scandal is now moving in the direction of some form of criminal conspiracy.
The facts are fairly straightforward. In 1989, there was a bid from a consortium—the County Hall Development Group—for the site, of around £200 million. It was., of course, made to the London residuary body, the body set up by the Government to administer the disposal of the assets of the Greater London council and to disperse the receipts across the London boroughs. That deal hit the deck, as one suspected that it would because of the dive in the property market in London and around the world. Because it was impossible to renegotiate the terms of the original deal, the £20 million deposit, which was put up as a bond by the development group, was forfeited.
We then move on to another proposal. One of the partners was the Shiryama hotel group from Japan, the owner being Mr. Takashi Shiryama, who made a bid for a 600-bedroom hotel at county hall. That bid, for £60 million I understand, was accepted by the LRB and the Government. At that point, a number of hon. Members, on a cross-party basis, went to see the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Home Secretary—the man with such a wondrous record in terms of carrying out his departmental responsibilities—and suggested that the bid from the London School of Economics would be far more appropriate to county hall, given its previous use and, indeed, to the wishes of Londoners as a whole. It seemed far more appropriate that one of the great international seats of learning should sit in county hall than some second-rate Japanese hotel group.
The then Environment Secretary, now the Home Secretary, turned it down. I think that that was a mistake. I warned him at the time that he could, if it went wrong,


end up with the equivalent of another Battersea power station, but this time right opposite the Houses of Parliament. That is the way in which we still seem to be going. The development came from an organisation with big ideas and, it turns out, rather small pockets.
It is scandalous—I know that that word has been used a number of times this evening, and I make no apology for using it again—that county hall still remains empty. The 600-bedroom hotel proposal has suddenly been dropped by the Shiryama group. It is now talking about an Asia-Pacific centre and an aquarium. It has not even sought a change of planning use. What sort of fiasco is taking place just a few yards across the river opposite the Houses of Parliament? It is amazing that Ministers should allow that to happen. I do not believe that Ministers or the LRB ever looked carefully at the proposal of the Shiryama organisation, because ideology, as ever, was ruling the roost.
The Secretary of State just wanted to get rid of county hall. His attitude was, "Just get it away from me. I don't care what it is, as long as it has nothing to do with the public sector. Oh, a Japanese hotel group? Okay, give it to them. I don't care whether it has any money. Of course we have never heard of these people. Who cares? Get rid of it."
Because that particular proposal was so badly examined by the LRB and the Government, a whole series of bizarre events is taking place over at county hall. Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic, which was inveigled into the group, now proposes to take legal action against Shiryama because he has suddenly been dumped in mid-course. He does not want to get involved in an Asia-Pacific trade centre and aquarium. He has enough problems as it is. He wanted to be involved with a hotel.
We have a ridiculous situation: Mr. Takashi Shiryama's London representative is apparently called Mr. Makota Okamoto, but every time that someone gets hold of him and asks questions, he goes under another name. He has been called Mr. Toyota, when one gets in touch with him, and Mr. Honda. God knows what other Japanese motor car he will be named after next.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even from his point of view as a member of the Labour party, it is an offence against the spirit of the idea of civic conservatism that an important public building in an important public location should have been treated in that fashion, and that it is highly desirable that the Government think again and find a way in which to ensure that that important public building be given an important public civic use?

Mr. Banks: I could not agree more. Indeed, when we went to see the then Secretary of State for the Environment, I made it quite clear. Everyone knows my political prejudices in respect of the abolition of the GLC and the use of county hall. I said to the then Secretary of State, "Look. I am prepared to give up the campaign, as it were, provided you are prepared to let county hall be used for something that conforms with the dignity of that building, and the bid from the LSE seems to be the most appropriate." It was an all-party bid and the offer still remains on the table. I suspect that that bid can be revived now.
I do not believe, as I warned the then Secretary of State for the Environment, that the proposal from Shiryama will come through to a conclusion. I do not believe that the Shiryama group ever had the funds in this country to carry out its proposed development of county hall. Indeed, I say that it was an entirely inappropriate application in the first place.
I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I do not wish to delay the House. May I leave a series of questions with the Leader of the House for passing on? I am concerned about the terms of the sale struck between Shiryama and the LRB. I understand that £50 million has so far been paid. I am still trying to find out whether that sum included any of the £20 million deposit, which, as I mentioned earlier, was forfeited from the 1989 consortium bid by the county hall development group. That is very important, as not all of it was Shiryama's money.
Secondly, since the 999-year lease—the terms of the sale—was for £60 million, when will the balance of £10 million, which has been deferred, be paid? Thirdly, what is the total development cost of the 600-bedroom hotel? As I have said, I do not believe that Shiryama ever had the resources to complete the development. Fourthly, has there been any application for a change of planning consent? Lastly, what examination did the Government or the LRB make of the original Shiryama proposal?
It is a scandalous situation. It is still not too late for us to rectify it.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the possibility of a first-class university occupying that building would be a fitting use for it, as our university education is one of the very best areas of British activity today and is much used by foreigners?

Mr. Banks: Again, I could not agree more. All that I would say to the hon. Members for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who have made such positive interventions, is: please do not direct those points at me; direct them to Ministers, because they are the people who need to be persuaded. We will give whatever support we are able to give and are asked to give in terms of the LSE getting hold of county hall, because that proposal seems to meet with the agreement and consent of both sides of the House.
Even at this late stage, I say to the Government: for heaven's sake do not make the terrible error of allowing this half-baked proposal to dribble gradually towards some totally unsatisfactory conclusion, leaving county hall resembling the terrible sight of that other wonderful building a bit further down the river—Battersea power station.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not worry too much if I do not follow on from that point.
I watched with interest the arrival this afternoon of the new hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson). He has a good chance of going into the Guinness book of records for having said more during his victory speech after his election than he did during the whole of the election campaign. He held no public meetings during the


campaign and, I think, refused every opportunity to debate with his opponents. I see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who was one of his minders, is in his place. I hope that we shall get a response from him when he winds up.
I want to talk about affordable housing, but before I do so I should like to say one thing about my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I agree entirely with his decision not to give parole to Myra Hindley. I was horrified when I read in The Sunday Times yesterday the in-depth interview that she gave. I find it difficult to understand how somebody like Myra Hindley can have such an in-depth interview with a journalist when the prison governor of Cookham Wood claimed that she played no part in arranging the interview.
There is a great campaign by the friends of Hindley to push for her to be granted parole. From what I have read, accordingly to Hindley all the blame attaches to Ian Brady and that her crime was that she lured the children: she lured them to their deaths, and I do not think that she has shown much remorse.
It is almost 30 years since those terrible crimes were committed, yet they are still fresh in the memories of many people. At least five children were sexually abused and then murdered. Anyone who could commit such a crime must be either mad or evil, or both. Myra Hindley must recognise that there can be no hiding place for her. If she were paroled, she could have plastic surgery, dye her hair, move to a part of the country or another country where she would not be known, but somebody, somewhere, would discover that she was there. We have only to hear what is being said by the relatives of the children who were murdered to realise that the only safe place for Hindley is in prison—for the good of everybody.
If this country cannot have capital punishment for the particularly vicious and evil crimes that Hindley committed, a life sentence must mean a life sentence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right in what he said, and I believe that he has the support of the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
I want now to raise the question of affordable housing—

Mr. David Nicholson: Although I am interested in hearing what my hon. Friend has to say about affordable housing, may I first ask whether he agrees that it is right that the Home Secretary should take responsibility for sentencing matters? Is it not offensive to people both in the House and outside that the European Court of Human Rights should intervene to prevent the Home Secretary from making decisions about parole or incarceration?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I agree with him entirely.
I have raised the issue of affordable housing previously, but I do not seem to have made any impact on the Department of the Environment or the Treasury—which, after all, holds the purse strings. Nevertheless, I persevere.
I declare an interest, as my wife is chairman of a housing association and also a member of the Housing Corporation. We have come to accept that housing associations are now the main providers of new rented accommodation. Much as I believe in home ownership, there will always be a need for rented housing. I am

worried because the housing association grant rate has fallen dramatically. That leads to a growth in benefit dependency and work disincentive. If the grants are lower, the rents must be higher. People then fall into the poverty trap and find that they are better off under the benefit system than by taking a lower-paid job. I cannot see any sense in perpetuating that sort of situation.
As I said, I have raised the issue before, but to no avail. The position is worsening and the recent Budget did not make matters any better—in fact, it made them worse. There has been a huge cut in the new social housing capital programme for 1995-96. It is the second year running that it has been cut. I am saddened because the funding of social housing is one of the Government's major social policy success stories. Since 1988, more than 250,000 homes have been provided under the system. It has proved wonderful value for money, because 50 per cent. more homes have been provided for every £1 of taxpayers' money than was the case in 1988.
We must remember that more than £5 billion of unguaranteed private sector funds have been injected into social housing. Also, the bad debt record of housing associations is far better than any other part of the property sector. The success of housing associations must be seen in the context of a change in attitude among people who need to find somewhere to live and who, initially, were attracted to owner-occupation. They see people in negative equity, which is a terrible problem for many people. At one time, if someone bought a house the chances were that its value would rocket. Not any more—house prices today are not rising. Some people have difficulty in affording the deposit; others worry about long-term job security.
All those factors must be taken into account and it is against that background that I cannot understand why the Government chose to single out the new social housing for rent programme for some of the biggest cuts of any expenditure programme. Just before the April 1993 Budget, I believed that taxpayers' investment in new social housing would be £1,800 for the year 1995-96. In fact, the figure is only £1,200 million, a shortfall of £600 million. If we add to that the private finance going into the programme, it makes a cut of more than £1 billion a year. That is a serious situation. In allocations for new homes for rent, the year-on-year reduction will be an unbelievable 59 per cent.
I think that we owe an explanation to all those people whose problem is that they cannot afford to buy their own homes and need to live in rented accommodation. I need an explanation of why there was a doubling in investment in social housing in the three years up to 1992-93, followed by a halving in the three years up to 1995-96. How does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on anyone else expect any housing association to plan in such a climate?
Of course I appreciate that public expenditure must be contained. All Conservative Members accept that. What I fail to understand is why the social housing budget should have been cut so drastically. I should like answers to certain questions. Where is the evidence to support the huge cuts in new social housing provision for 1995-96? Why have Ministers shifted the goalposts by referring to lettings and not to homes? The manifesto commitment specifically referred to homes. Why did Ministers increase the share for the much smaller social housing programme


for shared ownership? I should have thought that the emphasis would be on trying to help those people who have no choice other than to rent.
I shall repeat what I have said on previous occasions—that I get depressed when I see people sleeping rough in certain parts of London. Of course I know that there are reasons for that: young people today tend to leave home much earlier and the magnet of the big city attracts them, irrespective of the consequences; the number of divorces has increased enormously, so that where previously one home was sufficient for two people, after a divorce two homes are needed; and, of course, we must accept that for some people it is the sort of life that they choose for themselves.
I feel sorry for the genuine homeless who have nowhere else to go. I realise that homelessness is happening not just in this country, but throughout the world, but when we see it in this country it should strike at people's social conscience. If there were more affordable housing for rent, that would help in the fight against homelessness. Therefore, I hope that before we rise for the Christmas recess my right hon. Friend can give me some replies to the questions that I have posed today.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: It is a measure of how much the Dudley, West by-election result has affected the Conservative party that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) felt the need to attack a new hon. Member who has not even made his maiden speech. It is so unlike the hon. Gentleman to make such an attack that I was very surprised.
I was also surprised that he did not find time to mention the performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in dealing with David Dimbleby on the "Newsnight" programme when he was asked what Labour's policies were. When my hon. Friend catalogued the policies that had been stated during the general election, Mr. Dimbleby had to beat a quick retreat. My hon. Friend fairly sorted out the BBC on that occasion.
I want to devote most of my speech to the flooding in my constituency 10 days ago, which caused quite a lot of damage. Unfortunately, although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland specifically said in the Scottish Grand Committee that my constituency had been badly affected, I did not have the chance to question him.
More than 140 people had to be evacuated from their homes in the Farme Cross area of Rutherglen. Baronald street was particularly badly affected: dinghies had to be used to transfer householders to safe quarters. Even now, eight days later, the Dalmarnock road bridge is still unusable, and we do not when it will be usable again. At this stage no one is prepared to estimate the cost of the damage, for which Strathclyde regional council will be responsible.
In the east Greenlees area of Cambuslang, a large estate was cut off from its entrance road because of flooding—a problem which recurs every time the area is flooded. In the Bankhead ward of my constituency the Quigleys estate, which has a burn running through it—what the English would describe as a large stream—is subject to flooding at times of heavy rainfall; the burn overflowed

during last week's flooding, and it was only thanks to the valiant efforts of volunteers on the estate that the overflow did not reach the houses.
Tenants and home owners living on that estate have told me that when they telephoned Glasgow district council to ask for assistance they were asked whether they were tenants or whether they had bought their council houses. I do not consider that relevant, and I shall pursue the matter. Fortunately my brother Eddie, who takes a good deal of case work from that ward, will be able to discuss the response to the flooding with the authorities involved.
Other parts of Rutherglen are also susceptible to flooding. At Burnhill in the west end of Rutherglen, for instance, part of the local burn has been culverted, but other parts have not and can flood at any time.
At last week's meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, the Under-Secretary of State was asked how much support the Government would give Strathclyde regional council so that it could cope with the disaster. The Bellwin formula was cited; in effect, Strathclyde must spend £3.5 million before the system is triggered, and even then it will not be compensated for the full amount that it spends. It is all down to Government judgment. I do not consider that an adequate response.
In response to pressure from Scottish Members, the Secretary of State for Social Security has allocated £120,000 to some local Benefits Agency offices to help people whose houses have been flooded. Some of the money is supposed to take the form of loans, and that too is unsatisfactory. The Government have been reluctant to advance money to help people whose homes have been horrendously affected.
For various reasons, many people who have been forced out of their homes do not have adequate home insurance. The Government may say that that is their own affair, but the insurance premium tax that the Government have imposed helps to dissuade people from insuring themselves against disasters of this kind. The Government's response has not been good enough, in my constituency or in Scotland as a whole.
I am not a Scottish nationalist by any means; I believe that the United Kingdom constitutes the best way of dealing with the needs of all four home countries, and I strongly support the Union. Nevertheless—I know that I risk upsetting some hon. Members by saying this—I am struck by the disparity between the treatment of Scotland and that of England in cases such as this. If a similar disaster had occurred in the south-east of England, the media would have been full of Ministers dashing forward to help—especially in Conservative-controlled areas.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Outside London.

Mr. McAvoy: Outside London, as my hon. Friend says.
The continuing bias against Scotland will only help the Scottish nationalists and others like them who are trying to drive a wedge between the two sides of the Union. I hope that Conservative Members will eventually realise that.
The Government have told Strathclyde regional council—the main council trying to deal with the disaster—that there are to be cuts in grant aid. That will mean massive cuts in council services, as well as an


estimated council tax rise of between 20 and 25 per cent. The Government maintain that this is a case of crying wolf, but I know that many Conservative councils in both England and Scotland are also affected.
It is disgraceful that the Government should cut the grant of councils such as Strathclyde, which is dealing admirably with a national disaster. Many local people are also trying to alleviate the problems, and I am especially proud of the way in which Strathclyde regional councillors Eddie Thompson and Hugh McKenna have responded to the needs of their wards, and made sure that the council as a whole responds reasonably.
Strathclyde's problems have been compounded by Sunday night's fire at Trinity high school, which has imposed further pressure on the council's budget. Within a couple of weeks Strathclyde has experienced the flood and the fire, and been told by the Government that its grant will be cut. That does not constitute responsible government. Strathclyde's parliamentary Labour group is currently considering the council's request for a parliamentary delegation to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to review his attitude to the support of Scottish local authorities, particularly Strathclyde.
I am sorry to be sombre, especially at Christmas, but I am thinking of my constituents. More than 140 are staying in temporary accommodation. They do not know where the insurance money will come from—if, indeed, they are insured—and they do not know where their Christmas presents are, many of which will have been damaged in the floods.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Last Saturday, after the one o'clock news on the BBC, Northern Ireland listeners were regaled by Albert Reynolds, the former Prime Minister of the Irish republic, telling them what the framework document negotiations were about and describing the amount of agreement already reached between himself and the British Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have repeatedly told the House and the people of Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland's position within the Union cannot be changed until a majority of the people ask for a change, and that no such majority exists now or can be foreseen in the near future. Now Mr. Reynolds asserts that the two Acts which in law constitute the title deeds of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom—the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973—have both been renegotiated in the talks, and that changes in them will be made in the House of Commons. Mr. Reynolds went on to reinforce his remarks, stating that that was the position and the agreement at the framework document discussions before he was removed from office.
Two parties were at those talks—Mr. Reynolds and the Prime Minister. Mr. Reynolds has declared that the title deeds of the Union are to be tampered with and, what is more, that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution will not now be deleted: article 2 will stay in its place and only a slight change will be made to article 3. Surely the time has come for the Prime Minister to make a clear statement in reply to Mr. Reynolds' assertions. The statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

satisfied no one but is causing ever more outrage among Ulster people. He claims that confidentiality forbids him to reply, but the confidentiality has been shattered completely by Mr. Reynolds. It is surely the duty of the Prime Minister to put the record straight publicly.
The people of Northern Ireland must hear the Prime Minister's answer to certain questions. Are the title deeds of Northern Ireland's place in the Union—the 1920 Act and the 1973 Act—on the table, as Mr. Reynolds asserts? Have those legal documents been placed on a par with articles 2 and 3—which make criminal, illegal and immoral claims to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland—as Mr. Reynolds asserts?
Has the Prime Minister made a promise to Mr. Reynolds that he will advise the House of Commons to change both those Acts? Has he given up the demand that he said he would make, that articles 2 and 3 must go? According to Mr. Reynolds, that would be unfair. I am not passing judgment: I am asking the Prime Minister to answer those vital questions. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland have a right to an answer to now.
The shadow of the still armed IRA murder thugs continues to darken the scene in Northern Ireland. Over the weekend, they beat a man—one of their own co-religionists—almost to death. They broke both his arms and his legs and many other bones in his body. He now lies in an intensive care ward in the local hospital. Another man was similarly beaten up. In Enniskillen today they planted a semtex bomb, but fortunately it was dealt with before it exploded. The security forces have discovered that both the detonator and the semtex were of IRA origin.
With that dark backcloth, it is imperative that the Prime Minister should publicly reply to Albert Reynolds. If he does not respond, the people of Northern Ireland can conclude only that Mr. Reynolds was speaking the truth and that the Union is very much in danger because its title deeds are being tampered with by people who, by fair means or foul, have declared that Northern Ireland must be prised out of the United Kingdom, annexed to the Irish Republic and put under Dublin rule. I say to the Prime Minister: respond immediately and answer those questions urgently.

Mr. Tom Cox: All hon. Members receive in their post reports from national and local housing associations. All tell the same story: the continuing problems of many people seeking to find satisfactory housing and at a rent that they can afford. As we all know, the number of low-cost housing developments being built or converted throughout the country is inadequate. The recent Budget failed to give any hope either to the building industry or to people seeking somewhere to live. I wish to make my comments against that background.
In July this year, the Latham report was published. It was named after a widely respected former hon. Member, Sir Michael Latham. He was asked to consider what were and are major problems in the building industry. He was asked to do so not by the building and construction industry, although it fully supported his inquiry, but by the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment. One can expect the Government, therefore, to support the proposals in the Latham report.
My reason for taking part in the debate is to ask when the Government will respond to the proposals that Sir Michael made in the report. The report shows the size and involvement of the building and construction industry in the economy of this country. Well over 200,000 companies operate in either building or construction. Well over 750,000 people from the industry are employed in the work force. When the industry starts to take off again, I am sure that many more people who worked in it previously but who lost their jobs in recent years will return to it. The industry produces about 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross national product. Those facts are an indication of the industry's important and valuable role.
Sadly, in recent years thousands of small and large companies have gone into liquidation. As all the published reports into the reasons for that have clearly shown, one of the major problems has been the late payment or, indeed, non-payment of contracts. That leads to what is called the domino effect. One party to a contract becomes insolvent, which causes the insolvencies of other groups in the building industry. Money is lost, debts are not paid and jobs are lost.
The Latham committee considered the matter. The main cause of the problem has undoubtedly been the increasing number of disputes between clients—the main contractors and subcontractors. Disputes over contracts have caused delays in work and in payments for work that has been completed. That has done nothing to stop the increasing cost of building and construction work. It can and does lead to less investment in the industry. The amount of training undertaken by companies has fallen significantly in recent years because of those problems. That is the background to the position today and the industry has been in that position for some considerable time.
The Latham committee considered that background. All people agree that its report was one of the most detailed studies of the building and construction industry undertaken for many years. Sir Michael Latham's report made some 30 recommendations for improvements across the structure of the industry which would lead to a construction contracts Act. Everyone in the industry agrees that such an Act would provide greater certainty of cash flow and greater payment security.
One of the most important recommendations was that there should be an adjudication procedure to examine disputes between clients and companies. The building and construction industry has great scope for disputes over payments and, sadly, such disputes often arise. They can centre on the standard of work done or on delays in completion. That in turn gives rise to the domino effect I mentioned, whereby major companies tell smaller companies and subcontractors that they—the smaller companies—will get paid when they—the major companies—have been paid.
When the Latham report was published in July it was greatly welcomed by everyone in the industry. As I said, it calls for legislation in the form of a construction contracts Act. That would mean the setting up of secure trust funds to avoid the problems of non-payment. Once a contract with payment provision had been entered into

it could not be invalidated by actions taken by individuals in the industry who do not want to pay and who thus create all manner of problems for others.
My reason for mentioning the report is to emphasise its importance to a major sector of the British economy. The report cannot be allowed to gather dust while someone somewhere in some Government office decides what the next step should be. I was privileged to attend a meeting that Sir Michael addressed in September. He called clearly for positive Government action on his report's proposals. I again remind the Leader of the House that the Latham Committee was set up by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Everyone in the industry supports Sir Michael's proposals and his call for legislation. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise the importance of an industry which builds homes and creates employment and that they will be looking to the Government for a clear statement of their thinking on the Latham report. The report was published last July and we should like to know what discussions are now taking place with representatives of the industry. I have already pointed out that more than 200,000 companies are involved in the industry and employ more than 750,000 people.
I realise that the Leader of the House is not responsible for the Department of the Environment, but I know from previous experience of Adjournment debates that he is courteous enough always to forward to the relevant Department any comments made by me or any other hon. Member. In view of the fact that many people are interested in this subject, may I ask the Leader of the House when he thinks that the Government will introduce legislation based on the report of the Latham committee?

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recall that during business questions on Thursday I suggested to him that we should have a debate on the future of the railway manufacturing industry. There is to be an Adjournment debate on this subject tomorrow, but the matter that I want to raise and to which I alluded in my question on Thursday specifically concerns the future of the Asea Brown Boveri carriage works in York.
The carriage works is not situated in my constituency, although many of my constituents work there. In fairness to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), I must point out that he and I have together raised this matter with Ministers many times, and the position is now extremely serious. It requires action by Ministers during the Christmas recess, which is why it is especially relevant to raise it now, before the House adjourns.
Earlier today, in Transport Questions, several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who has remained in his place all afternoon, mentioned the improved service on Network SouthEast since the introduction of the Networker 465 trains which are manufactured at the ABB carriage works.
The third tranche of 465s is currently under construction, and that follows ABB's success in winning the competition for £150 million leasing of new rolling stock for British Rail which was awarded in 1993. The contract for the third tranche provided an option for British Rail to take up a fourth tranche. It is especially interesting that the idea of the fourth tranche being met


through the option was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), when he was Minister for Public Transport, at a meeting of the York Railway Forum, which I chair jointly with the hon. Member for York.
The point is that the £150 million leasing order, which involved public funds, could not be repeated, or could not be guaranteed to be repeated in future years, but that any further financing of Networker trains would in all probability have to be accomplished through the private finance initiative. With that encouragement, ABI3 put in an offer to British Rail in June or July in relation to the option. The tragedy is that, some six months later, British Rail has not approached my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, or his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, with any firm proposal.
I must point out to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, unless a firm proposal is put to the Secretary of State and advanced sufficiently for British Rail to signify its intention to take up the option by 15 January, the option will be lost. That is why it is urgent that the House consider the matter now.
There is no question in my mind but that British Rail has been dragging its feet. What has caused the greatest concern to many people in the York area, and especially to the hon. Member for York and me, the ABB work force and the York area economic development unit which has been monitoring the proceedings, is that it now seems that British Rail could be considering another tendering process and not exercising the option put into the contract for the third tranche.
That would be tragic news for the ABB work force in York, because it would inevitably mean a six-month tendering process and readvertising on a European basis through the Official Journal of the European Communities. In addition, ABB would not be able to offer the savings on the fourth tranche that it is able to offer now under the option arrangements.
The ABB works in York is the only carriage works in the United Kingdom that manufactures a complete carriage. That may have something to do with the fact that ABB recently lost the contract for the Northern line trains to GEC, which will import material from Spain. I cannot claim to be an expert on the matter, but I believe that a carriage works that manufactures a complete train is rather like a shipyard, although the process is shorter. Certain parts of the work take place in March or April, and the completed train is not ready until October or November.
The third tranche of 465 Networker trains is likely to be delivered by October next year so from March or April onwards, ABB will have no option but to lay off staff, unless it is certain that it will get the fourth tranche, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering always said was in the mind of the Department of Transport.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and other south-east Members agree that there are still too many old trains running on Network SouthEast. There is undoubtedly a need for further 465 orders. It is clear—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Dangerous trains.

Mr. Greenway: As the hon. Gentleman says, there are dangerous trains; it is interesting that he mentions that. There was a question earlier today about the dreadful accident at Cowden. I understand that one of the problems

with the old-style trains, which were built 25 or 30 years ago, is that the carriage is just bolted on to a platform on wheels. If the train hits an immovable object or a train coming in the other direction, the carriage completely shears off the base.
The 465 train is a complete-build body and does not have that weakness. With the new trains, passengers on Network SouthEast would be considerably more comfortable. They would be likely to be attracted back to travel on the railways after the dreadful signalmen's strike last year, when many of them found other ways to get to work. They would also be considerably safer on their journey.
This is a complex matter, which involves negotiations and delicate commercial considerations. It must be clear, however, that, unless the option is exercised, there is every likelihood that the ABB carriage works will close, because there simply will not be any work for the work force to do. I regard that as the most perverse crime that the Government could commit on the people of the York area.
Until I heard one of the answers in Transport Questions today, I did not know that this was the first year since 1948 that British Rail had not ordered any rolling stock. I fully support the privatisation process, because I believe that the lack of investment is due to a lack of money. From what has happened with the airlines or with coaches, it is clear that the private sector is likely to produce considerably more investment. We were told during the privatisation process, however, that there would be no hiatus in investment. All the present investment seems to be directed towards infrastructure and rail track.
I am not suggesting to the Leader of the House that the Government should consider the only option to be to persuade the Chancellor to release some of the money that may well be saved on the road-building programme after what we have heard today, and to spend it on public transport. I do not suggest that the fourth tranche should be a publicly funded proposal.
What I am saying to my right hon. Friend is that ABB has done all that Ministers suggested it should. There is a PFI scheme for funding the fourth tranche of Networker trains. We should encourage British Rail and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to make it clear that the option must be exercised by 15 January—or at least the intention to exercise it should be announced—so that we can reassure the ABB work force and secure here in the United Kingdom a carriage works that is capable of building all the new trains that a privatised railway will require.
From what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said earlier, it seems that, if we agree with all the Jopling proposals, there may be no more three-hour debates on the Christmas Adjournment. That would be a great pity. I often think that these are the best three hours in the entire Session. An amendment has been tabled on the matter, and I hope that it will be selected, because I want to vote for it.
I do not relish the thought that if, however, we have a debate on the Christmas Adjournment next year—I have made it a habit to speak in such debates during my seven or eight years in this place—I shall have to remind the House of what I have said this evening about the future of the ABB carriage works.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I hope that this is not the last time that we have a debate on the Christmas Adjournment. It is an important opportunity for hon. Members to raise particular concerns. If the Leader of the House ever returns, he may make a note of those concerns—

Mr. Mackinlay: There is no Minister here.

Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman's oppo, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), is here as his deputy; it is all right. He has got his pen out and he is writing things down. As long as he ensures that he writes it all down and sends it to the Minister concerned, I am quite happy.
I want to raise a number of matters concerning poverty and health in London. Christmas is often a time of deep conservatism and synthetic concern for many outside. Everyone else retreats to the bosom of the family and forgets about those outside who are begging, sleeping rough, living desperately overcrowded lives in other people's homes or waiting for hospital operations and surgery. The position of health care and poverty in London is desperate and complex. The number of people sleeping on the streets is still going up and hostel accommodation is no substitute for proper housing for people who desperately need it.
Many factors affect the health of people in London. Ill health is in part due to poverty, in part due to air pollution, in part due to stress and in part due to unemployment; there is a whole series of factors. We live in a country that still claims to have a national health service that is universal and free at the point of use. Opposition Members cherish that deeply and I look forward to the day when a Labour Government are elected who can ensure that that principle is carried through in all circumstances.
In that setting, I refer with real anger to a copy of a circular that I have just been given. It is from the surgical directorate of Whittington hospital in my constituency. It is dated 5 December and has been sent to all consultant surgeons and anaesthetists. It says:
The Executive Management Group have directed us to curtail all non-urgent elective surgery with immediate effect.
I have instructed Bed Bureau to cancel all non-urgent patients with the following exceptions: Day Cases, ECRs, GP Fund Holder's Patients, 18 month plus waiters … and Waiting List Initiative Patients.
Those patients are mainly from other boroughs. The circular continues:
Please note that 'Urgent' should be taken to mean where there is a real risk to life, or real probability of serious deterioration, if an operation is not performed before April 1995.
Taken at face value, the circular says that those who think that they have a right to health care in my borough or in Camden—the area covered by Camden and Islington health authority—have no access to anything other than emergency treatment for a life-threatening condition before April 1995. That is happening at the same time as wards are being closed, beds are unused and staff have nothing to do in some hospitals. It is nonsense. It is a travesty of justice and many people are in serious pain while waiting for a hospital bed to be made available for them.
I believe that that circular is a direct consequence of the operation of the internal market in the national health service. It is also flies in the face of all the assurances that my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and I have been given at numerous meetings, that there was to be no prejudice in favour of patients of fundholding GPs. Yet the circular says that if one happens to be a patient of a fundholding GP, one is okay and can get treatment. If one is not a patient of a fundholding GP—43 out of 44 GPs in my constituency are not fundholders—one has to wait until April next year before one can get an appointment.
I have also read very carefully the finance report given at the most recent full meeting of Camden and Islington health authority. Very strange language is used in those reports. They talk of over-activity in the hospitals—over-activity in Whittington hospital, which, apparently, is working a little too quickly and therefore doing more than was expected of it at the start of the financial year. That, apparently, is a reason not to carry on treating patients who need treatment, but to stop doing anything until the end of the financial year.
The report goes on to complain of the very large increase in the number of emergency admissions in hospitals in the Camden and Islington area. The reason for that, I hazard to say, is that many people, out of desperation, present themselves at the casualty unit because they know that they will have to be seen, whereas if they go to a GP, they know that the GP, however hard he or she may try, will not be able to get them a bed or refer them to the hospital. Also, the increase in the number of emergency admissions is because of a large increase in bronchial conditions being referred to the hospital, which is a serious problem throughout London.
With respect to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), the large number of asthma cases referred to hospitals at present is to do with cars, with the building of roads, and with air pollution. Asthma and other bronchial illnesses are now of epidemic proportions in this capital city and it is up to the Government particularly to do something about air pollution and promoting public transport, rather than private, polluting motoring. Those issues can be ignored no longer.
Further on in the report, I found that waiting lists for operations in the hospitals in the community that I represent, at 30 September 1994, showed that 1,200 people were waiting for appointments at Whittington hospital, a similar number at London Royal Free hospital, an even larger number at the University College of London hospital and a slightly smaller number at St. Bartholomew's. Indeed, 40 per cent. of those people have been waiting more than six months for an appointment. I believe that those figures Will be considerably higher in future.
I have serious criticisms of the circular and, indeed, of the information that has been given to many people in the past about the way in which the internal market will operate in regard to the health service in London. The internal market is a recipe for disaster; it is impossible to plan within it; and it means that each hospital has to try to fend for itself, to win contracts if it can. It means that if the health authority does not have the money to pay for the treatment of patients, the patients have to wait longer and longer for operations, with consequent loss of


earnings, loss of jobs and loss of employment prospects, and problems for the social services, carers, families, friends and everybody else. It is a completely mad way in which to run any kind of health service in this capital city.
Even further afield, I see the closures that are planned. On Saturday I went to Bart's to visit a very close friend of mine, who has been a patient there for the past six months. As I was walking through the hospital, looking at the buildings, feeling the sense of history and witnessing the absolute dedication and care of the staff there, who look after people in very serious conditions and do their best to make those patients' lives comfortable, I thought to myself that it was a criminal act to close that building. It is an act of lunacy, it is vandalism and it is fundamentally wrong.
I would hope that the Secretary of State for Health would go to Bart's and have the courage to look every patient and member of staff in the face and say, "You are surplus to requirements and we intend to go ahead with the closure of this hospital." To close that 800-year-old hospital is an act of the most crass vandalism imaginable, knowing full well that that hospital's patients will have to go on to the waiting lists of the UCL, of Whittington hospital, of the Royal Free and all the others; knowing full well that the closure of its casualty unit will mean that the already overstretched casualty units at UCL, the Whittington, the Royal Free and the North Middlesex will not be able to cope; and knowing fell well that the Secretary of State is also planning the closure of yet another casualty unit somewhere in north-east London. Frankly, it is appalling.
Even at this late hour, I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that she has been thrown a lifeline in the NHS management executive report last week which, at last, says that non-market considerations can be taken into account in the future of particular hospitals. I also hope, while she is on the subject, that the Secretary of State will look at the future of the Royal Northern hospital, which is also in my constituency, on the Holloway road. Its casualty unit was built as the borough's war memorial by public subscription—there is a large plaque to say so. Inside the hospital, there is an arch and an inscription for every one of those people who died in both world wars.
There is a huge local campaign to retain the building and use it as a nurse-managed bed facility, so that people coming out of long-stay or acute surgery will at least have somewhere to go for supportive care before they go home and can be looked after in the normal way. It would be a very cost-effective, good and sensible use of that building. I hope that the hon. Member who is reporting back to Ministers will relay that information to the Secretary of State and convey the concerns that many of us have expressed.
One hundred years ago, people in London hoped that their standard of living would start to improve, and that there would be more hospitals and better-quality housing, and the possibility at some point in the future of decent health care for them. All those people, who linked together the problems of poverty, unemployment, air pollution, bad housing and dangerous working conditions, recognised that health had to be taken as a whole. Yet here we are at the end of the 20th century, and all those problems are coming back to address us. It is time that we had a Secretary of State and a Government who were prepared to recognise that there is a link between debt,

poverty, air pollution and homelessness and ill health. The greatest cause of ill health is poverty and all its aspects have to be treated as one.
I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that it is time that she got a grip on the way in which the health service is run in London, lifted the nonsense circular that affects my constituency and also lifted the axe that is hanging over one casualty unit and Bart's hospital. At least, then, people who were desperate for treatment would get the treatment for which they had paid through taxation and national insurance contributions and could sleep securely in their beds knowing that they would be treated over this Christmas period.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: Before the House agrees to the motion to adjourn tomorrow, I should like to press on the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), in his absence, the need for a debate on the pros and cons of a national referendum being held before—not after—the 1996 intergovernmental conference. We need to consider not only the issue of a referendum itself, but the questions or question that may be asked.
The BBC "East at Westminster" programme in my region yesterday referred to the recent Gallup poll, which asked whether the public wanted a referendum on having a common currency in the European Union and closer ties with Europe—more rather than less integration with the EU—and in which 81 per cent. of the public responded yes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West was on that programme and may have seen—

Sir Anthony Grant: I was not asked.

Mr. Carttiss: I know that my hon. Friend was not asked that question. However, 81 per cent. of the public responded yes, they wanted a referendum, and 13 per cent. said no.
A Sunday newspaper reported on 11 December that it had polled 100 constituency Conservative association chairmen on the same question. Over half those asked supported having a referendum.
With your great grasp of events and impressive memory, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I tabled an amendment to the Government's paving motion for the debate on what was to become Maastricht legislation. I argued that we should not proceed until after a referendum, either before or after the Edinburgh intergovernmental conference. I was unable to support either the Government or the Opposition. My right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, as they were then—I cannot call the Prime Minister my right hon. Friend now because he has crossed me off his Christmas card list—persuaded me to join them in the Lobby to vote for the Government's motion, which I did.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: They conned the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Carttiss: No, they did not con me. My then right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised me that there would be no Third Reading and no conclusion to the debate on Maastricht legislation until the Danes had had their second referendum. On that basis, I was happy to support him.
During the debate on 4 November—I apologise for detaining the House by regurgitating my words on that date—I referred to the American presidential election. The debate took place the following day. I said:
The message that came from the United States via our televisions screens last night was clear and strong: President Bush had not addressed the jobs problem; he had seemed to leave the recession to sort itself out and had had no coherent economic programme; and he had lost touch with the people of America. I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if he does not address the problem of jobs, establish a coherent economic programme and regain touch with the people of this country, he will go the same way as George Bush."—[Official Report, 4 November 1992, Vol. 213; c. 337.]
Happily, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has addressed the "jobs problem". There has been a continuous improvement in employment prospects. The right hon. Gentleman has established an almost "coherent economic programme", with the one blip of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. Happily, I and some of my hon. Friends saved the Government from that dreadful mistake.
The Prime Minister was dead against a referendum two years ago, when I tabled my amendment, and before that. There was recently a reference to "another Whipless Tory". In fact, I am not whipless outside this place even if I am within it. [Interruption.] Read the News of the World. Although the Prime Minister was opposed to a referendum two years ago, as I said, last week he showed some movement towards recognising that the majority of the public want a referendum, and that is what the majority of the Conservative party wants.
I am not asking for a referendum on whether we stay in or leave the European Union. That decision has been taken. It is nonsense to pretend that there is any future for Great Britain outside the European Union. However, the way in which the EU develops in the remaining years of the century, and Great Britain's place in determining its future structure and the dimensions of the Union, should be debated more widely and more thoroughly before the Prime Minister goes to the IGC in 1996.
It is alleged that the Foreign Secretary is willing to have the issues debated. That is what we read in the newspapers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Never say never.

Mr. Carttiss: Indeed, never say never.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer—I cannot refer to him as my right hon. and learned Friend—is said to be dead against that course. He got it wrong on VAT and he has got it wrong on that.

Mr. Mackinlay: With friends like the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Carttiss: But I am not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Friend.
During the weekend, one of my constituents drew my attention to an article that had appeared in The Mail on Sunday of the previous weekend, on 11 December. It purported to have been written by the Prime Minister. Before I refer to the specific quotation in the article that my constituent was querying, I shall quote the sentence

allegedly written by the Prime Minister when he spoke of my hon. Friends who lost the Whip on 28 November. The Prime Minister is alleged to have written:
For some, Europe is anathema. They are appalled by all it has to offer and they seek—in their more extreme moments—a complete withdrawal.
"No, no, no" was said in the Chamber on a memorable occasion by Lady Thatcher, as she now is, when, happily, she was Prime Minister. I say "No, no, no" to any thought of debating in this place or wherever a move out of Europe.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has lost me now.

Mr. Carttiss: Never mind.
I was referring to an article that appeared in The Mail on Sunday on 11 December. It contained the following statement under the Prime Minister's name:
Some Conservative Members voted against the Government. They did so knowing that, if we had lost, there would have been a General Election.
That is what he said. The name "John Major" appears over the article.
No Conservative Members voted against the Government on the night in question. Seven of my hon. Friends abstained when it came to the Labour amendment, which aimed to block European finance legislation, of which the majority of Labour Members are much in favour. I voted against the Labour amendment. I was one of 330 Members who voted with the Government to oppose that amendment. We gave the Prime Minister his vote of confidence with a majority of 27. I did not vote against the Government. I did not, as the Prime Minister claimed in the article, risk a general election.
The Prime Minister, if he did write the article, continued:
So it is no use their pretending that their vote did not matter or that they did not know what the result would be.… That sort of self-indulgence is neither understood nor accepted by the vast majority of their colleagues in Parliament, or by the country.
I resent being told that adhering to the Conservative party manifesto, on which right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench and I were elected, is self-indulgent. In Essen, the Prime Minister said:
I hope over the months to come they will show they are Conservatives".
That is a reference to those who were expelled from the Conservative party. The Prime Minister expressed the hope that
they will support the Conservative Government, they will defend Conservative policy, they will defend the manifesto on which they and I were elected.
I shall remind the House of promises that were made in the Conservative party's manifesto. It reads:
We will insist on more effective control over community spending".
That appears on page 4 of "The Best Future for Britain". That is the document on which I and all Conservative Members were elected, including, of course, those who now sit on the Government Front Bench. I repeat:
We will insist on more effective control over community spending".

Mr. Jacques Arnold: That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing.

Mr. Carttiss: That is what my ex-hon. Friend says from a sedentary position. I know that he wants to speak in the debate, and the sooner I finish, the better will be his chance of making a contribution. I hope that he will not interrupt me to talk nonsense.
Over the past two years, nothing has been done to deal with the problem of fraud within the Community. That fraud has siphoned off £6 billion of European money. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have done nothing to address that problem. The EC budget is set to rise from £55 billion to £65 billion by 1999. We make an annual net contribution of £2 billion, and I could not vote for that—

Mr. Arnold: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Carttiss: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has a long speech to make.
I could not vote for increasing our contribution in the light of the promise that I made to my electorate. 'That is why I did not support the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill although I voted against the Labour amendment, which made good sense. In our manifesto, we pledged:
We will redouble our efforts to reform the common agricultural policy, and we will stoutly defend the interests of British farmers and consumers.
In addition, we said:
all member states must live up to their obligations under Community law … we secured agreement that the European Court will be able to fine any member state which fails to do so.
Those are not my words; they are quoted from page 3 of the party manifesto.
Earlier this year, the European Commission fined Italy £2 billion for producing 1.5 million tonnes of milk a year in excess of its agreed quota for 1989 to 1993. Spain was fined £1.4 billion. Italy and Spain refused to pay. The United Kingdom, Holland and Denmark then lodged a case against the Italian and Spanish Governments at the European Court of Justice. However, on 21 October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew the United Kingdom complaint to the ECJ, much to the disgust of the Danes and the Dutch, who were outvoted. So much for our pledge in the manifesto in respect of which my right hon. and hon. former Friends were elected in 1992.
So much for our pledge to make the European Community states live up to their obligations under Community law. The EC backdated an increase in the Italian and Spanish milk quotas to 1989, so they escaped penalties of £800 million, which is about the sum that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was seeking to raise from taxing old-age pensioners' heat and light.
Meanwhile, dairy farmers in this country, including those whom I represent in Norfolk, have had to reduce milk production. Some have gone out of business. The cost of a pint of milk has risen and doorstep deliveries are said to be at risk. So much for the Government promising in our manifesto stoutly to defend British farmers and consumers.
When someone to whom one tells the truth in their front room throws one out, one does not walk up the garden path next morning, knock on the door and say, "Please let me in." It is up to the person who has thrown one out, and to whom one has told the truth, to recognise the trut

hand say, "Please come back in." There should be cries not for party unity, but for sticking to the pledges upon which we were all elected in 1992.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It would be inappropriate of me to make my speech without acknowledging the courage of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) in the way that he spoke in such forthright terms. In a sense, it was a parliamentary occasion. It is very rare for someone to speak so frankly on the Floor of the House about the deep divisions in the Government and clearly indicate the extent of the bitterness in the Government ranks. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth should be congratulated on speaking in such frank and trenchant terms.
I do not believe that the House should adjourn, and I want to explain why. I want to reiterate a point that I have made in the House before. It is ludicrous that decisions about when this House should sit should be a matter for the Government and the Executive. Time and again, it seems that the House sits only if there is legislation for us to pass. The other important aspects of our parliamentary job, of scrutinising the Executive and of probing, cajoling and exposing, are deemed secondary to the role and interests of Government.
I look forward to the day—I believe that it will come one day, although perhaps not in my time here—when the House of Commons will be the arbiter of when the House sits and not the Executive.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend says that it is, but because of the payroll vote and the traditions of this place, the Government always get their way. I would like to see—

Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: I will give way in a moment, after I have completed my train of thought. The Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench agree through parliamentary choreography between themselves, and that is not in the interests of hon. Members in respect of their job of criticising and cajoling.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the courageous speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth—it was a very courageous speech and I, like all my Labour colleagues, speak as a stern and never-ending opponent of Toryism—would not be possible if the proposals are passed tonight? Under the proposals, debates like the one we are having now would disappear for good.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: That is not so.

Mr. Winnick: Yes, it is so. My hon. Friend should read the Order Paper and my amendments.

Mr. Mackinlay: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I do not want to prejudge the debate that will take place later this evening, but there is a real danger that, far from us being able to assert the rights and powers of Back-Bench


Members, we might allow them to be further eroded. The Adjournment of the House tomorrow, on the effective diktat of the Government, is bad on this occasion as it has been on other occasions.
During this debate, I have received notice from the Minister for Transport in London, as have other hon. Members, about the trunk road programme and the announcement of the new starts. In a letter to me, the Minister said that the A13 Wennington-Mar Dyke improvement scheme, which was previously an approved start for this year, has been postponed indefinitely.
I do not want to trespass into the debate about the roads programme, other than to say that it is indicative of how clumsy the Government are and how they are not running the country properly, because, during the debate, I have had a message bleeped to me which states that £2 million has already been spent on preparatory work for the A 13 scheme which was due to start in January. That is not the way to run the country.
Had the document to which I have referred appeared a few days ago, or if we had had a few more parliamentary sitting days, we might have been able to explore the Minister's thinking behind the decisions which, on -the face of it, appear not to have been thought through. I guess that that view is replicated by other hon. Members who have received similar letters about road schemes in the their constituencies.
Before the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) rushes over to bend the Lord President's ear, I want to make it clear that I am talking about the fact that the announcement—if that is the correct term—has been made at the fag end of a parliamentary sitting when there is little or no opportunity for us to probe the thinking behind it, particularly bearing in mind the fact that, in respect of the scheme to which I have referred, public money has been spent—perhaps abortively—in preparatory work. I would like to be able to probe the Minister further.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did the hon. Gentleman's Labour-led Essex county council downgrade the bid concerned and put other projects ahead of it in its application for transport supplementary grant?

Mr. Mackinlay: My point is that the matter is now under way. Decisions about our trunk road programme are not being made in a planned way. They are being taken by way of crisis government. There is a major revenue problem, and foolish decisions are being taken.
The issue to which I have just referred arose during this debate. It was not one of the issues to which I originally intended to refer. However, the House is to adjourn tomorrow, but a major issue which affects my constituency—and an issue which affects other hon. Members who have received similar letters about road programmes in their areas—has arisen, and we are unable to probe or examine the Minister's ludicrous decisions. In short, the Minister gets away with it, because Parliament will not be sitting after tomorrow.
The issue which should be raised, and which is an overriding case why the House should not adjourn, relates to Gibraltar. A week and a half ago, I asked the Leader of the House for an urgent statement from the Foreign Secretary about the reprehensible and unreasonable way

in which the Spanish authorities were behaving towards the colony. Of course, no such statement was made. That demonstrates how the House is failing in its obligations to scrutinise the Executive, particularly the Foreign Secretary. In the absence of that statement, it is fair for me to conclude that right hon. Gentleman is behaving dilatorily towards Gibraltar. He is a thundering disgrace to the cause of the colony.
This country has a proud and historic association with Gibraltar. The fiction, although it should be true, is that the Gibraltarians are British people, who have European Union citizenship. They are being denied the right to protection from Her Majesty's Government—protection that is extended to people from Grantham, Grampian, Huntingdon or Thurrock.
We have learnt from newspapers, however, that the Gibraltarians are suffering great disadvantages because of the actions of the Spanish authorities. In fact, people from Grampian, Grantham or Thurrock who visit Spain and who wish to visit the British colony are also being frustrated. That is outrageous. One would have expected that such problems would prompt one hell of a row in the House, but no anger has been shown, except by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and me, when I raised the issue a week and a half ago.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. Does he agree that the issue of Gibraltar is germane to the motion that we are debating, because we simply do not know what might happen before we come back in January? In view of some of the accusations that may be made abroad or even in the House and elsewhere, it is important to make it clear that far from Britain wanting to keep Gibraltar as a colony because of our colonial heritage, the overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians—more than 90 per cent.—do not want to be part of Spain. If Spain wants Gibraltar, it is up to the Spanish authorities to persuade the Gibraltarians accordingly. I hope that we will not see any further appeasement from our Government on that important issue.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend has always impressed me—even when he was the Member for Croydon, South a long time ago—because of the important principle of national self-determination to which he has always adhered. That principle should be vested in the people. There is no doubt that the Gibraltarians have demonstrated time and time again their wish to maintain their association with the United Kingdom. They are proud to be British, as well as embracing their Gibraltarian identity.
I was extremely proud to accompany a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House to Gibraltar this summer, at the invitation of the Chief Minister, to celebrate the Gibraltar national day. We saw with our own eyes the desire of the Gibraltarians to maintain their association with Britain, and to be full British citizens. In reality, they are also citizens of the European Union, but they are currently being denied the rights of that citizenship because of the unreasonable actions of the Spanish authorities.
The hon. Members who made that visit smelt that something was up when the Governor of Gibraltar failed to receive our delegation—we were told that he was otherwise detained at a family wedding. It was somewhat surprising that the Governor, who is no doubt a fine


former military man with a brace of medals, felt that it was inappropriate for him to join in the celebration of the existence of the colony of Gibraltar.
At that time, we also heard that the Attorney-General of Gibraltar had been eased out of office. According to today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, it is suggested that that was part of a pattern of skulduggery, emanating not a million miles from the Foreign Office. It appears that the Foreign Office is attempting to appease the Spanish authorities and to undermine Gibraltar Ministers. That is outrageous.
Should the Leader of the House say in reply to the debate that I am scaremongering and embroidering the facts, that is his fault, because I legitimately asked for a statement from the Foreign Office a week and a half ago, but was denied it. That was wrong.
I have every confidence in and support the Administration of the Chief Minister, Joe Bossano, and his colleagues. They have done a great deal to maintain the economy of the colony at a time when it faced a major crisis through the swift withdrawal of funding from the Ministry of Defence, which had been given because the colony was used as a port. The Administration had to find other means of maintaining the economy, and they have done very well. I accept that mistakes might have been made, but the colony has not had much support from the United Kingdom Government. That, too, is disgraceful.
The Spanish Government are now turning on the screws by making spurious suggestions about major irregularities in the customs arrangements between Gibraltar and Spain. They have claimed widespread smuggling of drugs, cigarettes and other contraband. The implication behind those suggestions is that the Gibraltarian authorities are acquiescing in those irregularities. I do not believe that that is so, but, were it so, one would expect Her Majesty's Government to tackle it and to make a statement to the House. They have failed to do so.
I challenge the Leader of the House to arrange for a Minister from the Foreign Office to make a statement to the House on Gibraltar before we adjourn. The Government, for all their boasts about their prowess and their apparent macho diplomacy, have once more demonstrated their weakness when it comes to protecting and promoting the best interests of British people, albeit those who live in Gibraltar. The Government are appeasing Spain, and it is about time that something was done.
I notice that, by coincidence, a meeting is planned at the Foreign Office tomorrow with Spanish Foreign Ministers. That means, of course, that it will be too late for a statement to be made to the House about the outcome of those talks. By the time the House returns, things will have moved on and gone off the boil. We will be faced with a backlog of other issues that hon. Members will want to raise. The problems faced by Gibraltar will be ignored.
It is not unreasonable for me to accuse the Government of behaving dilatorily towards Gibraltar and to demand a statement. I hope that the good sense of the majority of hon. Members will persuade them to join me in arguing that we should not adjourn until such a statement is made.

Mr. Douglas French: I was surprised when the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) was so suspicious of my brief intervention in his speech, when I pointed out that charges on the Severn bridge were levied in one direction only.
I support the line that the hon. Gentleman has taken. One reason that the charges are so high is that they are only imposed in one direction. They could certainly be reduced if they were charged in both directions. He will be pleased to know that a delegation of Conservative Members and local councillors from the area recently met the Minister for Railways and Roads to discuss the future tariff arrangements for the bridge. I hope that that meeting will produce some constructive results.
During the Christmas period, there will, sadly, be many road accidents, as usual, and many will involve uninsured motorists. That is a serious matter, on which the time for action has arrived. Effective and practical measures could be taken to reduce the problem significantly in the United Kingdom as it has been overcome in other countries. One such measure is the mandatory display of windscreen insurance discs.
Through my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I urge the Secretary of State for Transport to re-examine that policy to see whether a way could be found to implement it. The idea has a long history. I raised it in the House as long ago as the Christmas Adjournment debate in 1991. Since then, organisations like the Motor Accident Solicitors Society have declared themselves much in favour, and the Association of British Insurers has also made positive comments. Admittedly, some leading insurance companies have been more sceptical.
It is a serious problem. The best estimate is that, of 23 million motorists in this country at present, approximately a million drive with no insurance. Rising premiums have caused a growing number of people to think that it is better to drive while uninsured and face a slim chance of being caught than pay a yearly premium that is likely to be more expensive than a fine imposed by a magistrates court.
To counter the problem of uninsured drivers, the Government have increased the maximum penalty for driving while uninsured from £1,000 to £5,000. But that scarcely touches the heart of the problem. In 1990, only five drivers in the entire country were fined more than £1,000 for driving without insurance. In 1991 there were six, and in 1992 there were 25, but only one was given the maximum penalty of £5,000. That is one driver out of a total estimated number of 1 million.
The failure to tackle the problem vigorously is expensive, because uninsured motorists give rise to claims bills of some £250 million a year. Thus, a £250 million subsidy is paid by honest motorists to dishonest motorists. The Motor Insurance Bureau is funded by a 2.5 per cent. levy on motor insurance policies, which is not much different from the insurance premium tax, on which so much objection has been expressed. The Motor Insurance Bureau operates on a restrictive basis—a last resort—so that, in many cases, it will not meet claims, which then fall on the insurance policy of the driver who was insured, even though no culpability can be demonstrated.
Whenever this subject is raised, there are said to be insuperable obstacles. Windscreen insurance discs are said to be incompatible with a system based on insuring the


driver rather than the vehicle. It is said that WIDs do not prove that the person driving the vehicle is insured to drive it—some insurance policies cover an insured person and his spouse or a named driver only. It is also said that WIDs cannot accommodate the different uses to which a vehicle may be put—some policies restrict a vehicle's use to social, domestic and pleasure purposes, while others cover business.
The Department of Transport accepted all those objections when it made its last major statement on the matter in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). The then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), said:
we have decided not to require evidence of insurance to be displayed on a vehicle windscreen. Under our present driver-related insurance system the enforcement benefit would be little more than is already provided by the check on insurance which is made when renewing vehicle excise duty.
That explanation did not do the Minister credit, because it amounts to a massive understatement. Everybody knows that vehicle excise duty provides no check whatever, because it can be obtained for a year with insurance that is valid for only 24 hours.
The Minister's answer went on:
The display of an insurance disc would provide no assurance that the driver was covered by an insurance policy or complying with policy conditions".
Of course it would not. Its advocates do not suggest that it would. But it provides more information than would otherwise be available if it were not displayed and, as such, must be helpful.
The Minister continued:
nor would it protect against the insurance being cancelled once the disc has been issued."— [Official Report, 23 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 171.]
But it would protect against cancellation if, to get the premium refund, the policy holder was required to return the disc. None of those arguments carries any weight, except for those looking for reasons not to take that action.
A windscreen insurance disc system would provide tangible evidence that some kind of insurance cover was in place in relation to a particular vehicle. It would be evidence of the existence of an insurance policy but not proof of its adequacy, which would still be provided by supporting policy documents. The disc could provide much valuable information, such as the name and age of the driver, the classification of use, the date of expiry, whether the policy is for any vehicle or, if it is for only one vehicle, and the make and registration number of the vehicle.
For people insured to drive more than one vehicle—in practice, the vast majority of people drive only one or, at most, two vehicles—individuals could display their personal disc on the windscreen before starting out on a journey. That would become as automatic as clicking on a seat belt.
Some important parallels can be drawn with vehicle excise duty, for which the display of valid cover is mandatory. There are 140,000 convictions a year for failing to display a road fund licence. They are not displayed because they have not been bought; but the chances of identifying 140,000 evaders without a

requirement to display would be minimal. So the need to display enhances compliance. I submit that, were not the tax disc required to be displayed, the level of evasion would be much higher. It therefore follows that, if an insurance disc were required to be displayed, the number of uninsured motorists would be likely to decrease or the number of evaders apprehended would increase.
I have heard it said that the policy that I am urging on the Secretary of State would cause administrative burdens. With up-to-date technology, however, it is simple for an insurance company to provide a disc in the form of a tear-off section on the certificate issued when the cover is taken out. For insurance companies whose systems are up to date, that would present no difficulty whatever.
There is even an opportunity for a go-ahead insurance company to blaze a trail and introduce windscreen insurance discs voluntarily. It could be done in conjunction with an advertising campaign. Indeed, the disc could promote the brand name of the insurer. More generally, the industry could require display to meet the terms of the policy. It might even provide a small discount for doing so.
Such a system would meet with the significant approval of the police. All my exchanges with the police on the subject have shown that they are extremely enthusiastic about it. Discs would provide on-the-spot information which the police often have difficulty in extracting. They would save police time in checking insurance details, as well as the costly and totally unnecessary procedure of producing documents at another police station some days later, which is said to cost the police some £20 million a year, the majority of which could be saved.
Most important, that would increase the chances of catching uninsured drivers, many of whom are to be found around Christmas time. The present system catches only those who are stopped by the police and required to produce their insurance documents. It fails to catch about 750,000 people who fall into that category.
The windscreen insurance disc system has worked successfully in other countries, such as France, Ireland and Italy. It is well known by those who have looked at the subject that, before Ireland introduced WIDs in 1986, as many as 20 per cent. of drivers were uninsured. Within a year, that number had fallen to 8 per cent. The Irish Government estimated that every uninsured driver cost those drivers who were insured an extra £70 in premium. That Irish system is driver-based, and generally uses the insurance companies that operate in the United Kingdom and in Jersey, where the system has also been introduced with success.
Finally, the implementation of this proposal should be accompanied by the requirement that drivers be able to produce driving licences and insurance documents on the spot—that is to say, that those documents should be carried at all times. A combination of those two proposals would bring down the number of uninsured motorists, would help the police, and would greatly reduce insurance premiums for the many honest motorists.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I shall speak briefly because other people want to speak. The main reason why I should like this debate to take place before the Christmas Adjournment is that today I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Education, in reply to my request


that a deputation be allowed to meet her with a view to getting a single site for the Bolsover school. I had raised the matter previously on the Floor of the House, and I took it for granted that a deputation comprising Bolsover school governors, the Derbyshire education committee and myself would be able to meet her; yet, for some strange reason, the Secretary of State refused.
I hope that the Leader of the House will convey that information to the Secretary of State. As a result of raising the matter in that fashion, we might be able to arrange that meeting.
I think that it was at this time last year that I mentioned the Bolsover landslip in this Adjournment debate. The Leader of the House conveyed the relevant information, and we obtained a meeting with the Department of the Environment at that time. Although we did not get everything we asked for—we did not get the £1 million—we were able to arrange for a survey to be undertaken with a view to stabilising that dangerous landslip. I hope that the Leader of the House can do the same again in respect of the matter that I have mentioned today.
The only other matter that I shall mention is the dioxin at Bolsover Coalite, which I have mentioned many times in similar Adjournment debates and on other occasions. Greenpeace recently tested the dioxin level of the blood of many workers at Bolsover Coalite—testing that had never been undertaken by the Department of Health. Greenpeace found some alarming results. Some of the tests showed dioxin levels four or five times worse than what were supposed to be normal levels; whereupon the workers at Coalite decided to send me a petition, asking whether the Secretary of State for Health would arrange for proper blood tests of dioxin levels to be taken for all workers that wanted them. I sent on the infonnation. Sadly, the Secretary of State for Health has refused to allow those tests to take place.
I make that request to the Leader of the House, bearing in mind the fact that this type of Adjournment debate has been valuable in the past for many of us to raise matters of a constituency nature, however briefly, and that on some occasions we have managed to get the wheels of government turning in our direction. I hope that that occurs on this occasion as well.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was the 16th speaker in the debate and, having listened to all the speeches, I have to say that they have all been models of their type. Some have been short and effective, as was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover; some have been longer, but nevertheless models of their type. They prove that this type of setpiece debate before a recess is justified to enable hon. Members to raise various issues. No one wants to snuff out such debates.
Speeches such as those that were made tonight will be able to be made before the recess next Christmas, but on a Wednesday morning instead of late at night. It is inconceivable that, as three or four of the speakers said—for example, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—we will not be able to hold this type of debate in the future. The debate will simply move to a different part of the week.
I confess some astonishment, as it is one of my few visits to the House in recent weeks, having been occupied in the midlands, that no hon. Member mentioned—as I suspect that hon. Members have in the past couple of weeks, and after last Thursday as well—the need for an urgent debate on the scandalous goings-on in the gas industry and the drop in morale among employees of that world-class company.
If I had been a Back Bencher, I should have wanted to hold a debate on the public funding of political parties in view of the exposé in the Financial Times today of the funding of the Conservative party by British business. I should also have wanted to debate one of the other issues mentioned in relation to the health service by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North—the proposed closure of Bart's. However, I should have wanted to widen the debate, to encompass the climate of fear that exists in the national health service and employees in that service—the fear to speak out about the truth about what is going on in the national health service. That issue demands the attention of the House.
I suspect that other hon. Members might have wanted to mention the gross invasion of privacy by the press in recent days.
I cannot mention all the speeches that were made tonight, but I support that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) about the crazy situation that has arisen regarding the Severn bridge. I probably use it no more than half a dozen times a year, but I also use the roads in Gloucestershire, and what has happened there as a result of the abuse of effective privatisation is crazy. The sufferers are not only the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East, but the, believe it or not, tens of thousands of people who live in the Gloucestershire area, where the roads are being damaged again by people who seek to abuse the toll system.
I did not know, I confess, that there are differences between the arrangements for the tracking through of commercial vehicles at Dartford and on the Severn bridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East was absolutely right to mention that.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, or part of Staffordshire—I always forget which—

Mr. Cormack: South.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) mentioned the important subject of the neglect by the House of the situation in Bosnia, but his speech went wider than that, because it is an issue as the House breaks for Christmas.
British troops are in many parts of the world, but our service personnel are on call in Bosnia. Their lives are at risk during the recess and in the new year—a vulnerable part of the year. We know that they will not relax as everyone else relaxes, as they seek to ensure that the convoys of food and other aids get through to that troubled part of Europe. That is the scandal. It is a troubled part of Europe, and the trouble should not have been allowed to exist anywhere in the way that it has in the past three years. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that to the House in this short debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who has apologised because he cannot be present, mentioned the county hall saga, which is


becoming nothing short of a catastrophe for the Government. The building is now an eyesore. People, especially tourists, stop while walking across the road and ask, "What is that building over there?"—draped as it is with banners and scaffolding, and allowed to decay.
The building is a national asset. Only political spite and bile have not allowed it to be used for a major public sector facility, such as the London School of Economics or some other provision. It cannot be allowed to decline further. The cost of putting it right will be more in the long term, as everyone knows.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), wearing his hat as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, but, I suspect, in some ways wearing his previous hat as the Member for Brierley Hill from 1967 to 1974, made an astonishing attack on a new Member of the House, who had taken his seat and been sworn in as recently as one hour before, and who is powerless at the moment to defend himself.
It is outrageous to argue that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson)—what a phrase, eh—my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West?— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—did not seek to engage in any debate during the by-election. He accepted every invitation that was offered to him by everyone who wanted to put all the candidates on one platform or wanted to put the Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates on the platform with a Labour candidate. One of the reasons that that did not come about was the abuse of the Representation of the People Acts by minor parties who are not seriously interested in exercising political power, and who abuse the electoral process.
All responsible political parties which are represented in the House are serious contenders for political power and should put their programmes and policies before the people at elections. That matter should be addressed so that we are not prevented from putting forward our case at by-elections or general elections by minor parties who have no interest in the outcome of the results. It is an abuse. I do not wish to snuff out minor parties—far from it. Parties should be registered. I am in favour of all other aspects of modernising our political process.
There is consensus among the responsible parties represented in the House to ensure that we are not deprived of the opportunity to put forward our proposals on television and radio in elections. That matter should be addressed. That process was behind the comments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, which were somewhat unkind, but I understand the spirit in which they were made, with a 29 per cent. almost English all-comers' record for the Labour party. I can understand why not a single paid Government Whip has been present for the debate. They are attending not a celebration party but a wake.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on a separate issue, which is concern about the press interview given by Myra Hindley. This is a matter for personal views, and I speak for myself. I have always been an abolitionist. One of the planks that I have always used, even when I debated the issue at school, is that, in respect of some of the most heinous crimes, life should mean life. That costs the taxpayer more, I understand, but it is part of the quid pro quo of being an abolitionist—that is, in some cases, life

must mean life. Frankly, in that case, it is absolutely certain that life should mean life. I respect the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about the collapse of the social housing programme and the effect on homelessness. He is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting raised the long-delayed Government response to the Latham report. In one of my previous incarnations, I spoke on housing and construction on behalf of my party. Michael Latham's work makes a major contribution to renewing and reforming an industry upon which the country depends. That industry does not have a large import content. It is home-grown; it is labour-intensive in terms of creating jobs. My hon. Friend listed a host of proposals which deserve serious and, what is more, urgent Government consideration. I do not regard such legislation as politically contentious. There would be good will on both sides.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) deployed a case for flood victims. Like others, I have seen the effects only on television. Astonishing new rivers were created in a major city overnight, leaving many constituents homeless during this festive time. My hon. Friend's call for extra help for victims should not be unheard.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a powerful intervention, and I respect the way in which he made it. He shared with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) a call for the urgent need to return to the railway building industry. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Because I was not present at Question Time, I did not know that it has been disclosed that this is the first year since 1948 that British Rail has not ordered any rolling stock. In one of my previous incarnations before I came to the House, I worked briefly for Metro-Camell Ltd, the carriage and wagon works in Birmingham. I understand something of the nature of that industry.
It beggars belief that York—to many people, it is the home of the railway industry and of our fine national railway museum, which I have visited on a couple of occasions—will be left without capacity to build railway vehicles and carriages. If we do not invest in the industry, the result will be fewer British jobs, less capacity to build and design, and less potential for export. One industry after another has gone down the plughole. Because of the 15 January deadline, the option should be addressed urgently by the Government. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that that matter is addressed.
I pay tribute to the brave and courageous speech by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss). I mean that most sincerely. I understand the position in which he and some of his colleagues find themselves. One of them is my pair, and I want him back with the Whip as soon as possible. I certainly respect the way in which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth put his case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made a case for Gibraltar. I have visited Gibraltar a couple of times. I have no interest to declare; they were private holidays in 1977 and 1979. At that time, Joe Bossano was the organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union in the colony. From my three weeks in the colony and from listening to Gibraltarians talking in the streets, cafes and pubs about their feelings then—they have not changed—I know that in no


circumstances would they be prepared to be ruled by Madrid. There is no question about it. I suspect that the hype has probably been raised so that the British Government can sell out on the fishing negotiations regarding the Irish box. That will pacify the Spaniards to keep the heat off Gibraltar. I hope that that is not the case, but I am naturally a suspicious person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that the Secretary of State for Education declined to meet him regarding the Bolsover school. From my experience, the Secretary of State for Education would be well advised to meet my hon. Friend, or she will have a very uncomfortable 1995.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). More and more it feels like an occasion for a certain kind of groupie, as I have now had to reply to seven or eight recess Adjournment debates, and there is a certain repetition in those who appear on such occasions. I can hardly remember one without the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I emphasise that that is no criticism, before anybody attacks me. I do not think that I can remember a single one without my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), not many without my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and indeed very few without either my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) or the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I must at least pay tribute to their assiduity in attending such occasions.
I was grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Perry Bar about suggestions that such opportunities are about to disappear for ever. Such suggestions do not seem to stand up. That matter will be the focus of attention in the next debate.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Newton: I have little time. If the hon. Gentleman's point relates to the procedure motions, I suggest that he might sensibly make his comments it when we reach them.
As ever, I will not be able to refer to all speeches with a substantial comment. However, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) always takes me by surprise when he asks for something nicely rather than beating me about the ears, I will certainly communicate his requests—

Mr. Skinner: I am here to oppose the Government.

Mr. Newton: There was no sign of the Christmas spirit in the hon. Gentleman earlier, but no doubt it has overtaken him in the intervening period. I welcome that. I will certainly draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health.
Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) made only the modest request that I pass on his comments about the local government settlement and the meeting that he hopes to have, and of course I will do that.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr made an additional comment about the points raised by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the Severn bridge tolls. The

toll levels were debated when Parliament considered what is now the Severn Bridges Act 1992. The hon. Gentleman took a leading part in those debates. As I understand it, the toll levels are based on a formula which is set out in the Act, so there is nothing mysterious in the matter. It is fair that bridge users, rather than the general taxpayer should finance a crossing—the new crossing, that is—which is exceptionally expensive and offers exceptional time savings to those who benefit from its construction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South will know that there is not much that I can add to what I have said on previous occasions, but he knows also that the British Government very much want UNPROFOR to stay as long as it can fulfil its mandate without unacceptable risks. I shall bring to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the comments that he made and the questions that he asked.
I think that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) conveyed less than the full flavour of what my colleague said today about the Newbury by-pass—although I understand why he wished to raise the matter. As I understand it, it has been announced that work on the A34 Newbury by-pass is on hold for about a year. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will examine each road scheme decision as it is put to him, and he has concluded that the Highways Agency should be asked to look again at the plans for the bypass and to explore other options as a matter of urgency.
So, while I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view and the desire of those who want early relief, we also need to ensure that we find the right solution. The same applies to a number of other road schemes referred to today—Oxleas Wood and the east Thames crossing, for instance.
As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend has today announced an initiative to refocus the road programme to make the most effective use of the existing network. In the light of the strong objections that have been expressed about the environmental impact of the new Newbury by-pass route, my right hon. Friend has insisted that the Highways Agency report to him on the consistency of the Newbury proposals with the new direction that he is giving to the road programme. The hon. Gentleman may still have reservations—I do not suggest that it would be unreasonable if he did—but that is rather different from the flavour of his speech, in which he suggested that the road had just been ruthlessly cancelled.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the Leader of the House tell us, therefore, whether all the Government's road programme schemes will be subjected to road assessment, in line with the details announced in the SACTRA report?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a,position to add to what the Secretary of State said today, nor will I—except in respect of the points made by the hon. Member for Newbury, on which I sought further information during the debate.
As for the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), I have already arranged that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will look into the matter and will write to him. I trust that will be helpful.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West was in good form earlier, but I thought that he went a fraction over the top. If there is to be a significant change to the


plans for county hall, a new planning application will be needed, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would carefully consider whether to call in any such application for his determination.
I suspect that I will be able to say very little more about the remaining speeches if I am to achieve the requirement under the Orders of the House to finish by 7.34 pm. I have, however, carefully noted, and will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention, both the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale about housing matters and the comments of the hon. Member for Tooting about the Latham report. I understand that the Government are considering a progress report from the Latham review implementation forum during the next few weeks, and the Environment Secretary proposes to respond to it in early February.
I well understand why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) felt it right to discuss the flooding in Scotland, if only because I happen to have been born and brought up in the Essex port of Harwich, where eight people were drowned on the occasion of the North sea floods in 1952 or 1953. I therefore have a clear impression of the difficulties that floods can cause for communities. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to examine carefully what the hon. Gentleman said.
The same goes for what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said about transport orders. I know that my right hon. Friend has asked British Rail to reach its conclusions as soon as possible. I do feel, however, that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) might have paid some tribute to the investment in one tube station in his constituency and to the amount spent on new Northern line trains in recent times. Instead, he simply reiterated his list of complaints—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that Foreign Office Ministers will look carefully at what has been said about Gibraltar. Finally, I pass by the interesting speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss).
Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 20th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 10th January.

Jopling Report

Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected amendment (b), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), to motion No. 5. If he wants to move it formally at the end of the debate for Division purposes, I shall look to him at that time. Members may of course speak to all the other amendments on the Order Paper.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below.

(1) In this Order 'a consolidation bill' means a public bill such as is defined in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 123 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &amp;c., Bills).
(2) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in committee in respect of a consolidation bill may be received by the Clerks at the Table before the bill has been read a second time.
(3) If a motion that a consolidation bill be not committed is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the bill has been read a second time, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
(4) The question for the third reading of a consolidation bill shall be put forthwith.
(5) Any public bill, the main purpose of which is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, other than a private Member's bill or a consolidation bill, shall, when it is set down for second reading, stand referred to a second reading committee, unless—

(a) the House otherwise orders, or
(b) the bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

(6) If a motion that a bill such as is referred to in paragraph (5) above shall not stand referred to a second reading committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(7) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (5) above.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I also refer to the other four motions before us. The first is:
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below.

(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill and on ways and means motions in connection with a bill—

(i) forthwith, if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time; or
(ii) not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings, if the motion is made otherwise.

(2) Business under paragraph (1) above may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed.
(3) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1) (d) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.
The second is:
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below.

(1) The following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.):


'(2A) Where a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument be approved, the instrument or draft instrument shall stand referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., unless—

(a) notice has been given by a Minister of the Crown of a motion that the instrument or draft instrument shall not so stand referred, or
(b) the instrument or draft instrument is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.'

(2) In paragraph (3) of the said Standing Order, for lines 18 to 20 there shall be substituted the words 'that a measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent, or of a motion relating to an instrument made under such a measure'; in paragraph (5) for the words 'paragraph (3) (a) or (3) (b)' there shall be substituted the words 'paragraphs (2A) or (3)'; and in paragraph (6) the words from 'instruments' in line 54 to the end of the paragraph shall be omitted.
(3) Except as provided in Standing Order No. 14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders), the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Community documents not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings; and Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)) shall have effect accordingly.
The third is:
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
Provided that paragraphs (3) to (8) below shall come into effect on the third Wednesday on which the House shall sit after the making of this Order.

(1) The House shall not sit on eight Fridays to be appointed by the House.
(2) The Fridays so appointed shall be treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating any period under any order of the House and for the purposes of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) and of Standing Order No. 62 (Notices of amendments, &amp;c., to bills); and on such Fridays—

(i) notices of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office, and
(ii) notices of amendments to bills, new clauses and new schedules and of amendments to Lords amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office,
between Eleven o'clock and Three o'clock.
(3) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at Ten o'clock and shall between that hour and half-past Two o'clock proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown.
(4) The subjects for debates on that motion shall be chosen by ballot under informal arrangements made by the Speaker analogous to those which apply to the motion for the adjournment of the House under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House); and no subject shall be raised without notice.
(5) Not more than two subjects shall be raised between Ten o'clock and One o'clock on a Wednesday, and not more than three between One o'clock and Half-past Two o'clock.
(6) A motion for the adjournment of the House not disposed of at half-past Two o'clock on a Wednesday shall lapse; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions; no subsequent motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business have been disposed of; and, save as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), no Member other than a Minister of the Crown may make such a motion before the orders of the day or notices of motions shall have been entered upon.
(7) In paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) the words "Wednesdays" and "Wednesday" respectively shall be omitted.

(8) Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) shall not have effect; the reference to the said Standing Order in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words from "conclusion" in line 10 to "and" in line 14 shall be omitted.
(9) In Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) shall be omitted; in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) for the words from "returns" in line 4 to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "and questions"; in Standing Order No. 15A (New writs) the words "or notices of motion" shall be omitted; in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) the words "or notices of motions" in line 15 shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words "or motions" in line 18 shall be omitted.
(10) In Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments) for the words from "periods" In line 3 to the end there shall be substituted the words "the question I thereon shall be put forthwith".
(11) In Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) paragraph (2) shall be omitted.
The fourth is:
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the following provision shall have effect in place of Standing Order No. 45A (Short speeches):
The Speaker may announce at the commencement of proceedings on any motion or order of the day relating to public business that she intends to call Members to speak for not more than ten minutes in the debate thereon, or between certain hours during that debate, and whenever the Speaker has made such an announcement she may direct any Member (other than a Minister of the Crown, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith.".
I should like also to refer to the wider package of reforms that the Government and the official Opposition have agreed to recommend to the House. I set it out in answer to a parliamentary question last Thursday, it appeared in Hansard on Friday; and I hope that hon. Members have found it helpful.
The proposals arise from the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—a report that the House has already debated twice on the Adjournment. I pay tribute to him for his labours, which I hope will tonight finally bear the fruit that he has urged on us for some time. I shall not attempt to rehearse everything in his report, as one of his proposals—and hence one of my aims—is to keep speeches reasonably brief. I would not want to breach that.
Following much diplomacy through the usual channels, involving, first, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), then the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), and more recently the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is with us tonight, we have agreed on a set of proposals which, as I told the House at the end of the debate on the Loyal Address, implements nearly all the changes proposed by my right hon. Friend's Committee. They also achieve its main strategic objectives, although not necessarily in precisely the way proposed.
I should like—this is more than a mere formality—to express my thanks to all involved in the discussions for their constructive approach. I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury will understand if I particularly mention the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, who was in


the hot seat during a key period. That is in no way to detract from the helpful discussions that I have had with the hon. Lady, who has shown a rapid grasp of these points in the few weeks that she has been doing the job.
The proposals, if the House approves the motions this evening, will be put into operation as an experiment—an important point—for the remainder of this Session, with a view to reviewing experience towards the end of it. There will thus be no permanent changes to our Standing Orders—as distinct from Sessional Orders applying to the remainder of this Session—without another debate and another vote in the House. For those who harbour some doubts about some aspects, I hope that that gives them an element of reassurance.
The Select Committee's main aim was to get rid of late sittings. There is not much doubt that most, if not all, Members would agree with that objective, which the Government fully share. I hope, though, that it will be recognised that, over the past two Sessions, in what one might call the spirit of Jopling, we have made every effort to organise the business in such a way as to reduce the number of late sittings. We have had a considerable amount of success in that, for which I pay tribute to the Opposition "usual channels". Certainly, hon. Members who, like me, have been in the House since the mid-1970s or earlier will recognise that there has been a huge reduction in the number of late sittings compared with what was taken for granted only 15 or 20 years ago.

Mr. Don Dixon: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to distinguish between the usual channels and the usual channels. The most recent time he used the expression, I could agree with it. But the first time he used it, he may have been taken to refer to the Whips Office, and I should like to stress that the Whips Office had nothing to do with this agreement.

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether I can say that the thought had never crossed my mind, but I do, of course, understand why the hon. Gentleman made that point. I hope that he in turn will understand that, if I refer to the usual channels, it is in the spirit of the conventions of the House and not an attempt to convict the hon. Gentleman of any particular sin. Indeed, I would not regard it as a sin to have been involved in putting together this package, which I regard as rather good.
To achieve its aims in respect of getting rid of late sittings, the Committee recognised clearly that, if the number of sitting hours is to be restrained, it is necessary also to reduce the amount of business to be taken on the Floor, and to ensure that the Government remain able to secure a reasonable programme of legislation. That was therefore the focus of a large number of its recommendations.
Before coming to the various specific suggestions that the Committee made for easing the weight of business on the Floor, virtually all of which are implemented in the motions, I should first say a word about the Committee's proposal that is normally described as the automatic timetabling of Government Bills, which it saw as an important ingredient in the package to allow greater certainty of finishing at 10 o'clock.
After a good deal of reflection, and I mean a good deal, the Government and the Opposition concluded that the most sensible approach to the two linked issues—the

timetabling of Bills and restrictions on the hours of sitting—is to rely on voluntary agreements reached through the usual channels, the people most closely concerned—I say this without prejudice to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), and perhaps as a compliment to him—with making any agreement work in this place. In other words, we think that it is better to continue to operate on that basis rather than devise some new mechanistic solution.
Having searched long and hard for a form of timetable motion that would ensure that the agreed rate of progress was made with each Bill, without resorting to the rigidity and inflexibility of the conventional guillotine—Standing Order No. 80—we concluded that such a mechanism did not exist. We were forced to conclude that, in effect, any mechanism that could be put formally as a timetabling mechanism for Government Bills would end up being a guillotine, and that that would present many difficulties, certainly for the Opposition and possibly also for the House in terms of the flexible arrangement of its business.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Surely the Leader of the House must recognise that what has tended to happen in recent years is that the Government have guillotined more and more Bills under procedures that allow no input from the official Opposition, or for that matter from other groups in the House, including his own Back Benchers. Does he not recognise that the Committee was seeking to provide a way in which timetabling could be achieved, but which nevertheless gave opportunities to those in the House with legitimate concerns about Bills? We risk getting the worst of both worlds—easy guillotines for the Government to introduce and no safeguards for anybody else.

Mr. Newton: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics, he will see that his assumption that the number of guillotines has been steadily rising in recent years is not founded. The number did not enlarge in the Session that we have just completed; on the contrary, there were relatively few guillotines. I cleave to the point that I made. In practice, a timetable motion that would achieve, with or without the involvement of other parties, the security of the handling of business that the right hon. Gentleman probably has in mind, would look so much like a guillotine as to be, effectively, a guillotine under another name. I believe that that would present real difficulties.
It follows from our approach to timetabling that we also thought it right to adopt a similar, if one likes, "usual channels" approach to sittings. During the debate on 13 July 1992, I expressed the Government's support for the principle of a 10 o'clock finish as the norm, but expressed doubts about the rigidity of the solution that the Select Committee had proposed. I also made it clear that the Government accepted the Committee's aim that completely new business should not be scheduled to start after 10 o'clock. That remains our position.
Accordingly, rather than have new arrangements entrenched in Standing Orders, or for that matter Sessional Orders, the Government are undertaking this evening, as part of the agreement, to use their best endeavours to avoid late sittings whenever possible and to avoid taking highly contentious business on Thursday evenings, particularly on the Thursdays before the Fridays that are to be designated under the fourth motion on the Order Paper. It would not be practicable to guarantee a 7 o'clock end to all business on those Thursdays, as that


would bring us very close to a three-day week for Government business for 10 weeks of the year; but I emphasise that we shall none the less do our best to ensure that parliamentary demands on Members on Thursday evenings are kept within reasonable bounds, so that their other commitments on Fridays can be given some protection.
In the same spirit, the Government will use their best endeavours, as I have perhaps shown already, to give early notification of the dates of recesses. The House will understand that particular difficulty is attached to the timing of the summer recess; it may not be possible to give as much notice of the dates of the summer recess as of other recesses, or to rise for the summer as early as we might wish. Again, my hopes are to move as far as possible in the direction of that which the Jopling Committee, and no doubt the House, would like.
The House is, of course, also concerned, as was the report, to see earlier notification of business generally. Some of the difficulties are obvious, certainly to anybody who has been involved, and perhaps to anybody who simply observes. They include the need to accommodate Opposition and European Scrutiny Committee requests for debates on the Floor, which may arise at short notice, uncertainty about the timing of business arising from proceedings in another place, and indeed the value that the House itself places on the capacity to reflect in the business, without too much delay, new issues that arise or developments that take place on existing issues.
Nevertheless—I hope that the House will accept the good faith with which I assure it of this—I am genuinely anxious to move as far as I possibly can to meet those wishes and will seek to do so in relation to advance notification of major debates. I must emphasise, however, that the more we move to meet that desire of the House, the more the House will need to give greater weight to such words as "provisional" and to phrases such as "subject to the progress of business", than it has hitherto been inclined to do, because there is undoubtedly a tendency to regard that as just going through the motions. The more we attempt to give advance notice of business, the more meaning will have to be attached to those phrases, and people would need to be willing to accommodate change in certain circumstances.
Before I come to the motions on the Order Paper, I shall refer briefly to a few other elements of the proposed reforms. We shall seek to take uncontentious business off the Floor of the House, by making greater use, by agreement, of Second Reading Committees. We also think that there is a case for considering whether we can reduce the quantity of parliamentary time that is consumed by what can be called set-piece debates, such as the debate on the Loyal Address and a number of other regular events during the year. But because of the wide range of interests in the House that would be affected by any proposed reduction, I suggest that the right course would be to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee to advise on how the demands made by set-piece debates might be slimmed down. Clearly, any proposals there would require widespread consultation going rather beyond the usual channels.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the amount of time for scrutiny by way of formal parliamentary procedures were to be reduced, or if that were to be the assumption, if

democratic accountability is not to suffer excessively, assistance should be given to scrutiny in other ways? Does he accept that the corollary of shorter hours, or fewer sitting days, should be a greater commitment by the Government to freedom of information as well as to more extensive consultation on Green Papers and draft clauses, and earlier exposure of Bills?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend raises a number of points. The Government have, of course, sought to improve access to information, although I understand that there are still issues that remain controversial. We have manifestly moved down the path of improving, as I would judge, consultation, not least in respect of consultation on draft clauses on Bills, which has been done within the relatively recent past on the Shops Bill and the environment agency part of the environment Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently made it clear that he will publish an entire proposed reserve forces Act in draft within the next few months. While there may well be areas in which my hon. Friend would wish to see us move still further, I can point to a number of developments of which he should approve.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: I will, but I am trying to keep my speech within the parameters requested of me.

Mr. Cormack: Surely all that is needed is for the Government to practise a self-denying ordinance and introduce less legislation.

Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend examines the Queen's Speech with care, lie will realise that he has seen heavier Queen's Speeches in terms of the number of Bills. They are substantial Bills, but a considerable amount of time and effort was rightly given to presenting the House with a programme which, while large and important, takes account of the sort of pressures that my hon. Friend has just further exerted upon me.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but the changes will undoubtedly remove a great deal of private Members' time, which usually means private Members' Bills.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Rubbish.

Mrs. Dunwoocly: The point made by some hon. Members is of great importance. If there is to be real scrutiny of Government legislation, it is important that we have not only access to a great deal of the information on which the legislation is based, but the right, if need be, to ask the Government to give evidence on it to the House at an early stage.

Mr. Newton: That is clearly a point on which, from the nature of his interjection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale may wish to comment. What the hon. Lady said about a reduction in time usually occupied by private Members is simply not true. In the Session that has just finished, the time used by private Members—this is a shorthand description—that is to be discontinued took up 123 hours, while regular


Wednesday morning sittings in the same period would have provided 144 hours. That is a gain of 21 hours over the Session.
I want to conclude my remarks, as it is clear that many hon. Members are interested in taking part in the debate. The five motions on the Order Paper give effect to those elements of the agreed package of reforms that involve varying the Standing Orders for the duration of the experiment. As I said, those are Sessional Orders that will apply for the remainder of the present Session.
The first motion deals with a matter which, although not discussed in the Select Committee's report, will nevertheless make a modest contribution to improved working hours. It provides an expedited procedure for the consideration of uncontroversial law reform Bills, which I hope will be welcomed in all parts of the House. There has been a good deal of pressure, both here and in another place, for getting on with law reform measures.
For Bills that merely consolidate the existing law, it will be possible to omit the Committee stage altogether and the Third Reading will be taken without debate. Bills that reform the law in line with Law Commission recommendations will be automatically referred to a Second Reading Committee for consideration, unless a reasonable request is made that any particular Law Commission Bill should have its Second Reading debate on the Floor.
The second motion provides that a money or Ways and Means resolution taken immediately after the Second Reading of the Bill to which it relates will be decided forthwith. Free-standing money or Ways and Means resolutions will be debatable for 45 minutes. None of that, of course, affects the Budget resolutions, because they are not at that stage
motions…in connection with a bill".

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder whether, even at this stage, the Leader of the House would consider making that proposal voluntary. It would reduce substantially the rights of Back Benchers, especially those who are squeezed in a Second Reading debate. The safety valve is that one can always threaten to speak on the money resolution. My experience is that if we do that, it is surprising how the Whips manage to negotiate just a little bit of time to allow us Members to get in on the main debate. Why cannot the proposal be a voluntary restraint rather than an enforced one?

Mr. Newton: I can say only that, as far as is possible, we have sought to adopt the specific proposals of the Select Committee, which were endorsed in all parts of the House. That proposal was one of them and I think that it is reasonable to include it in the package.
The third motion provides in paragraph (1) that all affirmative statutory instruments will be automatically referred to a Standing Committee unless the Government table a motion to de-refer them. I assure the hon. Member for Dewsbury and her colleagues that the Government will accede to any reasonable request from the Opposition that an affirmative instrument be debated on the Floor. Paragraph (2) preserves the existing treatment of Church of England Measures. It also contains consequential provisions.
Paragraph (3) provides for a limit of one and a half hours on statutory instruments or European Community documents debated on the Floor, even if the debate begins before 10 o'clock. The special arrangements for deregulation orders, which the House approved on 24 November, are not affected by this change. As at present, debates on prayers that begin at or after 10 o'clock will finish at 11.30 pm.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that while I warmly welcome the proposal, there is a strong feeling that not enough orders are debated? As they are to be sent automatically to Standing Committee, will he give some thought to the possibility that we can have better debates on more orders when there are sufficient names on the Order Paper?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly give thought to my hon. Friend's point, but I hope that he will understand if I do not go further than that at this stage.
The two proposals taken together, that is, the normal referral of statutory instruments to Standing Committee and the fact that they can be debated for an hour and a half on the Floor at whatever time of day the debate starts—whereas at present if the debate starts at 4.30 pm, it can continue until 11.30 pm—will probably do more than any other to make a 10 o'clock finish to business the norm rather than the exception.
From time to time, it may be necessary to vary those arrangements by means of a business motion, for example, to allow a longer debate for a particularly important instrument, to provide for a joint debate on a group of related instruments, or to apply a time limit to a motion that was not covered by this provision. However, I say to the hon. Member for Jarrow that our aim will be to ensure that any such motion is agreed through the usual channels before being tabled, as we would always seek to do.
The fourth motion gives effect to the Jopling recommendation that time normally used by private Members—except private Members' Bills—should be transferred to Wednesday morning sittings. Paragraphs (1) and (2) provide for the designation of a number of Fridays on which the House will not sit. On those Fridays, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office—this may help some hon. Members—will be open and Members will be able to table questions and amendments. In a full Session—should the House decide to make the experiment permanent—there would be 10 such Fridays, as the report recommended, but as the period of the experiment is somewhat shorter than a full Session, the motion proposes that for the remainder of the present Session there should be eight.
For the benefit of those outside the House, those inside would like me to emphasise that those are in no sense Fridays off; they are days kept clear of specific duties here at Westminster to enable hon. Members to discharge equally important duties in their constituencies and elsewhere.
Paragraph (3) and the succeeding paragraphs provide for the House to meet at 10 o'clock on Wednesdays for a series of balloted Adjournment debates. Arrangements for those debates will be made informally under the kindly authority of you, Madam Speaker—at least, I hope that it will be kindly. It is envisaged that there should be one or two general debates in the three hours between 10 o'clock and 1 o'clock and three


half-hour debates between 1 o'clock and 2.30 pm, when questions would begin. Those provisions will come into force early in the next parliamentary term, on the third Wednesday on which the House sits, that is, 25 January. That will allow enough time for the new arrangements to be put into operation.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I will give way, but I have now slightly exceeded my original allotted time and I want to bring my speech to a close fairly rapidly.

Mr. Spearing: I want to clear up an anomaly that may not have occurred to hon. Members. Paragraph (10) transfers motions on the Adjournment—and we had a very useful three hours of that this evening—-to a Wednesday. What is wrong with transferring the motion for the Adjournment for the appropriate recess to the Wednesday before the Adjournment, to keep together grievances before Adjournment and debate and decision, and the principle that a motion that is amendable should also be debatable? Otherwise, the separation of voice and vote is surely against parliamentary principle.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is making a point which may be raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and which is also, in a sense, related to an amendment, which was not selected, that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. It might be sensible for me to reserve further comment until the hon. Member for Walsall, North and my right hon. Friend have had an opportunity to make their points.
Paragraph (8) does away with the obsolete Standing Order that enables a late sitting to be suspended until 10 o'clock the following morning, which is clearly incompatible with regular morning sittings. Incidentally, I was barely aware of that provision myself until recently, and to my recollection it has never been used.
Paragraphs (9) to (11) dispense with the existing time available to private Members—for private Members' motions, Adjournment debates following the Consolidated Fund Bill and debates on motions fixing the dates of recesses—which is being transferred to Wednesday mornings. As a transitional measure, the "end of term" Adjournment debates that I announced in Thursday's business statement, which are not governed by any of the Standing Orders, will go ahead as planned.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend take up a request from many of us, relating to the giving of notice to the Table Office? Would it be possible for the Table Office, and other such departments, to accept questions by fax? Can we allow modern technology to be introduced into our offices?

Mr. Newton: The debate seems to be being used as a sort of Christmas tree—appropriately enough—on which to hang a variety of interesting suggestions. A possible use of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 would be to allow the Patent Office to take in material by electronic means rather than on pieces of paper; perhaps the House authorities will also consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I would be rash to give her a snap yes, but I shall certainly ensure that what she has said is given careful consideration.
The final motion gives you, Madam Speaker, wider discretion to apply the 10-minute limit to speeches. It will be possible to apply the limit to any kind of public business and to all or any part of a debate, rather than just to two hours in the middle as at present. Inevitably—not least because of the interventions problem that has been demonstrated in the past few minutes—there will be exemptions for Front Benchers and for a minority party spokesman, but Front Benchers will strive to keep their opening speeches to a maximum of 30 minutes and their closing speeches to 20 minutes. I stress that that is more than just a formula. In practice, by agreement, most winding-up speeches have recently been limited to 20 minutes; we shall try to make that arrangement more formal.
I emphasise that the five motions—together with the other points agreed between Government and Opposition, which I described earlier—are designed, like the Select Committee's report on which they are based, as a balanced package to protect the legitimate interests of Government, Opposition, minority parties and Back Benchers. As with all proposals of that kind, their success will depend to a significant extent on the good will of all involved. I do not mean just Front Benchers, but I do refer to them particularly—again, I am looking hard in a certain direction.
Provided we have that good will, we shall have taken a significant step forward in assisting the more sensible management of our affairs. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I welcome the debate, and the general thrust of the package proposed by the Leader of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) was right in saying that it did not bear his fingerprints; I know that he, and a few other hon. Members on both sides of the House, are very concerned about the possibility of any change in our procedures. In my view, however, the changes that we are discussing do not constitute a dramatic revolution. I believe that they are no more than a useful step forward, making Parliament more efficient and, we hope, more effective.
Let me echo the tribute paid by the Leader of the House to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), both of whom played a considerable part in agreeing the package through the usual channels. As the Leader of the House said, it is both a package and an experiment from which the whole House should expect to learn in the forthcoming year.
The Leader of the House has agreed that the procedures in the package will be reviewed in October. I think that we shall need some flexibility during the year to allow modification of practice; indeed, I suspect that over that time conventions of which we are not yet aware will develop, as that is how our procedures have always come about.
I do not believe that these proposals are the last word in terms of making the Government more accountable, scrutinising the Executive or any of our other functions. We all know that the press tends to see the workings of the House as the Government trying to put their business through and the Opposition trying to frustrate that objective; no doubt many people consider that the be-all and end-all of Parliament.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is the point.

Mrs. Taylor: It is one point, but we have wider responsibilities to scrutinise and even try to improve legislation, although we may disagree with its basic objective.
One of our responsibilities today is to ensure that any proposed procedural changes do not damage the opportunities that are available not only to the Opposition officially, but to all Back Benchers, to scrutinise what the Executive does. There are legitimate concerns that we shall have to consider in the coming year. I know some of my hon. Friends believe that the interests of Front Benchers and those of Back Benchers are not always the same. We must be conscious of the need to ensure that Back Benchers' rights are a reality, and not to undermine their long-term position—although I would argue that it is still extremely difficult for Back Benchers to scrutinise in the way that we would like.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and the spirit in which she has said it. Does she agree, however, that there is no need to balance the opportunities of Back Benchers to debate amendable motions— or, indeed, to contribute in any way—with the sitting hours of the House? Surely the two are 'not connected. The House can sit when it decides to do so; surely the procedures for private Members are separate.

Mrs. Taylor: My point is that if we are changing our procedures and our sitting hours we should be careful not to take any action that would detract from Back Benchers' rights. I do not think that the package damages those rights.
We must remember that change in one area will always have a knock-on effect in another. That is why it is important for us to conduct an experiment rather than changing the Standing Orders themselves. The Jopling report may be a starting point, but I do not accept every dot and comma in it, and I know few hon. Members who do; nor do I think that we should pursue the question of our working hours simply to try to enable Members of Parliament to work fewer hours. I do not believe that that is the objective of the report, or of today's proposals.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that some of us sit in Committee on Wednesday mornings. The idea that moving work from Friday to Wednesday will somehow improve the position may turn out not to be the case. Many of us are minded to vote against the amendments simply because we are old fashioned enough not to believe that we came here to improve the Government's legislation, which we believe in most instances to be beyond redemption.

Mrs. Taylor: The legislation that my hon. Friend and I would agree is beyond redemption is the sort of legislation that we shall repeal and replace after the next election. In the meantime, however, we have a duty and responsibility to protect our constituents' interests as much as possible by minimising the damage done by legislation with which we disagree. Select Committees sit on Wednesday mornings, but there are always different calls on the time of Members of Parliament. Standing Committees frequently sit on a Tuesday and Thursday afternoon while the House sits.
Select Committees sit almost every afternoon while the House is sitting. All hon. Members have problems in terms of balancing their time.

Mr. Skinner: What about Fridays?

Mrs. Taylor: Many hon. Members need to use Fridays, as far as possible, for constituency work. That is not always the case for London-based Members, who can get to their constituencies during the week, but it is extremely important for northern or non-London-based Members to use Fridays as a constituency day.
I shall deal briefly with the specific proposals because, as the Leader of the House said, I do not think that Front-Bench Members should hog the debate. The remit of the Jopling Committee was not to revolutionise the workings of the House of Commons. Its remit was narrow.
On changes to the time provided for private Members' legislation, I emphasise to my right hon. and hon. Friends the points that were made earlier. The total time available for private Member's Bills will be no less than it is now. Hon. Members who took part in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which yet again went through the night, must acknowledge that they would not lose anything if that sort of debate took place on a Wednesday morning. It is important for non-London Members, in particular, to be able to use Fridays with some certainty and to be able to plan ahead, which is not always possible now.
My hon. Friends are somewhat too concerned about the loss of end of term Adjournment debates such as the one that we had earlier. It is important that the House should have safety valves and that hon. Members have the opportunity to raise subjects and urgent issues that they have not be able to raise in other ways. The suggestion in the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), is important. I put that suggestion to the Leader of the House following discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There is no reason why the last Wednesday of any term could not be used for the same sort of debate as we had earlier.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the important things is that such debates are a right? Under present procedure, any Back Bencher who wants to raise an issue has almost a guarantee that, on an Adjournment motion, he can get up and make a fuss. If one takes that right away from Back Benchers, they will have to consider actions outside Standing Orders, such as standing by the Mace and generally disrupting the place. That is not in anyone's interests. We should therefore keep the safety valves.

Mrs. Taylor: I agree that having safety valves is far preferable to people standing by the Mace or using other procedures. That is why it is worth considering the possibility—I do not see why this should not happen—of using the last Wednesday in the way that I explained. We could do so this year as an experiment. If it worked, we could consider ways of writing it into Sessional Orders or even Standing Orders. I hope that that is one issue from which we shall learn something and on which we shall make progress this year.

Mr. David Winnick: I know that my hon. Friend has done a great deal of work on this—although I disagree with some of the conclusions, I would


not want to take that away from her—does she not realise that, if we abolish the sort of debate that we had before the present debate, it will take away an important right and, moreover, the ability to vote against the motion, as hon. Members have done on many occasions?
If my hon. Friend did not hear the courageous speech made an hour or so ago by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), I am sure that she will read it. Such a speech may be out of order if the amendment, which has not been selected, is accepted. The Chair would have to consider what was and was not relevant. It would be an unfortunate step if we took away the basic right to debate matters before we agreed to go into recess and the right to vote on the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend, for whom I have a great regard, will think seriously about that.

Mrs. Taylor: I have said that I am concerned that safety valves should not be lost and that we should learn during this year whether having the final Wednesday for that sort of debate would be practical. We might be able to make progress on that through discussion. That is one of the reasons why it is important that the proposals are experimental. We can learn what works, where hon. Members feel frustration about things that have changed, and where we need modification of the proposals. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that we are changing not the Standing Orders but the sessional orders of the House. On that basis, I hope that he will consider that the changes are not so dramatic as some people may have suggested.
I know that some of my hon. Friends are worried about the changes to statutory instruments, but the assurances given again today by the Leader of the House are extremely helpful. The rights of Back Benchers are again an issue of genuine concern. It is one thing for Back Benchers to influence what their political party says through the usual channels in terms of asking for a debate on the Floor of the House, but it would be a loss to exclude all mechanisms for Back Benchers to force a debate on a statutory instrument on to the Floor of the House.
I have had discussions, but we have not yet developed a mechanism that would be an adequate trigger. I know that previous discussions were held on the matter. We shall have to monitor the issue during the experimental period. We do not want to build discontent among Back Benchers by excluding statutory instruments about which they are concerned but which Front-Bench Members do not think are so important.
We should use the rest of this parliamentary Session to experiment in more positive ways of scrutinising statutory instruments in Committee. I have been impressed by the changes that have taken place in some Committees. In the European Scrutiny Committee, for example, Ministers can be questioned before a short debate. I know that that position is not ideal. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised a valid point last Wednesday, I believe, about the coincidence of a debate in Committee and a debate on the Floor of the House. Problems of that sort must be avoided. The Standing Orders of the House must be considered again to deal with that sort of problem, which should not have arisen as it did last week. We should be looking to give hon. Members better opportunities for better quality scrutiny of statutory instruments in Committee.
On Ways and Means resolutions and money resolutions, I have no concerns in relation to the proposals to take money resolutions on the nod immediately after Second Reading, so long as any separate money resolution can be debated in the normal way. That is important. However, the suggestions relating to Ways and Means resolutions will be rather more in need of monitoring during the year.
I do not see how anyone could object to a voluntary timetable for Standing Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, the Deputy Chief Whip, said that such a system has operated for the past couple of years, and often successfully. If there is a breakdown, it is often because positions are entrenched. That problem could still arise. I have serious reservations about any move towards automatic guillotines. Although some hon. Members want us to move in that direction, I do not regard this agreement as a precursor for such a move.
As for the other matters under discussion, such as Law Commission Bills and consolidation Bills, I do not know of anyone who objects to the proposals, so I hope that they will not be contentious. I regard the increased discretion that it is suggested should be available to you, Madam Speaker, as definitely a move in the tight direction, especially if it means that limitations will be placed on the time that Front-Bench spokesmen are allowed.
The amendments examining mechanisms by which injury time could be given to any hon. Member who accepts and responds to interventions are especially important. If, in a full day's debate, hon. Members spoke for 10 minutes in set-piece mode and refused interventions which would reduce their speaking time, it would reduce the spontaneity of our debates and create a wholly different atmosphere, which would not be conducive to good scrutiny of legislation or good debate. Whether or not the amendments are discussed specifically this evening, I hope that it will be possible for the issue of injury time to be considered, because it would benefit the House.

Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Taylor: This is the last intervention that I shall accept.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is especially important that Ministers give way because the more their allotted time is reduced, the greater the temptation for them to refuse to do so? As we know, it is when Ministers give way that we often obtain important information.

Mrs. Taylor: I agree, and I believe that limiting Ministers to 30 minutes is at least better than the original suggestion of 20 minutes, which would certainly have been an excuse for them to refuse to give way. We should still expect Ministers to give way, and such important conventions are worth protecting.
The Leader of the House and I have had several discussions about the announcement of future business. Clearly, if the changes are accepted, some of the House's business will become more obvious in advance. We shall know, for example, when Bills will leave Committee and it will be helpful to us all if we know when economic, defence or set-piece debates are to take place. However, I believe that the Leader of the House should be in a


position to announce not only the business for the following week but the provisional business for at least the week after that. The House should accept that it was provisional and might be subject to change, occasionally at the request of the Opposition. The House would then accept that any change was made for good reason. That would be extremely helpful to everyone involved.
I said that the proposed changes are not dramatic or revolutionary, but that they can help the House to work more efficiently. As hon. Members have said, we need to examine our procedures and make changes to, for example, procedures relating to statements, the possibility of having written parliamentary questions during the recess and freedom of access to information, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). They are all very important issues and although the proposed changes are not the last word on any of our proceedings they are constructive and can help the House to work more efficiently and effectively.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot impose a limit of 10 minutes at this stage, but I hope that hon. Members will exercise voluntary restraint.

Mr. Michael Jopling: The House will recall that I had the honour of being the Chairman of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House. It has been said that the Committee's report was the father of these proposals; in that case, the grandfather was my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) who is sitting next to me and who was the Leader of the House on whose initiative the Committee was set up.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on her fine speech. It is two and a half years since the Select Committee reported. We had a debate before the previous election and there was broad support for the report's recommendations. We had another after the election and there was even greater support, backed by an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and signed by 215 other hon. Members. The House now sighs with relief that some proposals are at last being discussed; members of the two Front-Bench teams have got down to some serious business and reached an agreement.
It is lamentable that it has taken the House so long to decide how to manage its own affairs. That might have something to do with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who made an extraordinary statement at the beginning of the debate. He said that there were usual channels within usual channels. I used to be part of that system and I must say that I had no experience at all of what he was talking about. It would be very dangerous for the House were there to be usual channels within the usual channels—the House could not work like that. However, in the Christmas spirit, let us welcome the proposals introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I believe that the proposals that we are debating today and the announcement made by the Leader of the House last week in a written answer amount to about 85 per cent

acceptance of the Select Committee's proposals. Those changes, coupled with certain procedures, can be said to be the most wide-ranging reform of the sittings of the House in the second half of the 20th century. They are as important as that and will greatly affect the way in which the House brings itself up to date.
In a way, the two-and-a-half year delay has meant that the proposals now receive even broader support in the House than they did when they were produced. The process reminds me of my annual practice of making sloe gin at home—it takes six months to make the stuff but the longer one leaves it, the better it tastes. However, that is incidental.
I shall not weary the House by relating the contents of the Select Committee's report that the Government have not taken up and that have not been embraced by the usual channels, but I must mention what is undoubtedly the most important omission in the proposals, which is the Select Committee's recommendation that a timetable be placed on all Government Bills. I know that this has always been the background to the major causes of non-agreement between members of the two Front-Bench teams.
The better management of Bills has been recommended by the Procedure Committee for a good many years, but nothing much has happened. Of course, we all know in our hearts that there are times when hon. Members of all parties use the procedures, for reasons that I well understand, to indulge in time wasting. It is a long-standing and well-known technique which all Oppositions, and some Governments, have used. I have been party to it myself, in government and in opposition, so I am familiar with it. Anything we can do to eliminate unnecessary time wasting is in the interests of the business of the House.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. Friend has had long experience here and has admitted taking part in such practices on both sides of the House. Can he recall more than one or two occasions on which, at the end of the day, the legislation was in any way altered?

Mr. Jopling: Rarely indeed. That was a point that the Select Committee, in its unanimous proposals, had very much in mind. Very rarely do such techniques amount to very much—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course I can think of changes that have happened as a result of such techniques, but they have happened rarely and in our hearts we all know that.
Since the Select Committee started its deliberations three years ago, we have had many more timetable motions. When I was a business manager here in the early 1980s, I was absolutely determined that the Government should never exceed in a year the number of guillotines that Michael Foot produced in that famous one night—as I recall, he introduced five. Nowadays, that is all history.
The House has changed its mood and it has gone very much in the direction of accepting timetable motions. When I arrived here 30 years ago, there was tumult in the House whenever the Leader of the House proposed a guillotine motion. That is all in the past. The hon. Member for Dewsbury made a point with which I strongly agree. The Government have within their gift the right to apply a guillotine whenever they want. It is crucial, however, that they do not abuse that right. I say that to Ministers and to Opposition Front-Bench Members, and it applies to any party in government.
I shall now deal with the motions. I fully agree with motion No. 2 on consolidation Bills. Motion No. 3 concerns money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions. There was a unanimous view in the Select Committee that endless debates on Ways and Means resolutions until a closure motion was moved and three-quarters-of-an-hour debates on money resolutions, although sometimes important, were nearly always unnecessary and often time-wasting.
The reform on statutory instruments is overdue. It is right that statutory instruments should go into Committee automatically, with agreement between the usual channels, and that they should be taken on the Floor, whether under the negative or affirmative procedure, if the Opposition especially want that. That must be right. However, I do not want my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, once the motion has been accepted, to propose that statutory instruments should be taken after a Second Reading debate, thus starting at 10 pm. That would be totally against the spirit of what he has said and of what the Select Committee has said.

Mr. Newton: indicated assent.

Mr. Jopling: I see my right hon. Friend nodding his head. I hope that I can take it from that that the Government will not normally propose that statutory instruments should be taken after business has finished at 10 pm.
Motion No. 5, on the sittings of the House, closely follows the recommendations of the Select Committee on Friday and Wednesday sittings. I warmly support the proposal. I also support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which has not been selected. He proposes that there should be no ministerial statements on Wednesday mornings. Such timing would be totally against the spirit of the Select Committee's proposal and I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that that will not happen. Such statements should remain at 3.30 pm.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North—I have had the pleasure of talking to him about this—about the three-hour recess Adjournment debate. The Select Committee made a close study of private Members' business. We added up the number of hours taken on private Members' motions, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which goes through the night, on three-hour Adjournment debates, such as the one that we have just finished, and on the debates on the final day before the recess, such as that which we shall have tomorrow. We took the average number of hours for such private Members' business and we discovered that it was almost identical to having a four-and-a-half-hour sitting on Wednesday mornings between 10 am and 2.30 pm. We proposed, therefore, taking all that private Members' business out and putting it on Wednesday mornings. The hon. Gentleman's proposal that we should still have the three-hour Adjournment debate would upset the arithmetic, and I would be opposed to that.
I am very much more attracted by the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that, on the Wednesday before a recess, we should have a similar debate. One could perfectly well structure it so that we could have, as the first motion, the motion for the Adjournment of the House for whatever recess it is. That would allow us for three hours in the mornings, between 10

am and 1 pm, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, to have the sort of debate—which I believe is very valuable and I bow to nobody in that—that we have just finished.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will, I think, reply to the point about the Adjournment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he has done, irrespective of the arithmetic, which fits, is to substitute a debate on the Adjournment on Wednesday for debates on specific motions? Irrespective of the fact that motions can be voted on and are amendable, that reduces the opportunities for private Members.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has got it a bit wrong. The proposal by the hon. Member for Walsall, North would provide 12 hours more of private Members' time than we have now; that goes against the feeling that we want a balance between Back Bench and Front Bench. His proposal would upset that. I hope very much that the House does not agree with the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I hope that when we come back to the matter in a year's time, an amendment similar to that tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will be tabled and that we can vote on it. I shall certainly support it.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury raised the matter of safety valves. I was educated a great deal in my life by my great friend Lord Cocks, who was the Labour Chief Whip when I was Government Chief Whip. He used to say to me how vital it was to maintain in the House the right for people to let off steam—safety valves. That is why the Select Committee did not want to change what is, in my view, the somewhat absurd practice of allowing hon. Members to introduce ten-minute Bills in July when they know that they have no chance of getting them through. It is an important safety valve and therefore it is a good thing.
That is also why the Select Committee was not in favour of changing motions under Standing Order No. 20, to which the House is accustomed at 3.30 pm. Those safety valves are crucial and I am very much in favour of preserving such opportunities. I strongly approve, therefore, of the theory of having debates such as the three-hour debate we have just had, although they should be held on Wednesday mornings. I think that we can accommodate that at some time.
I agree with mot ion No. 6 on short speeches. However, I hope that the Speaker will make those views known to long-winded Ministers when they go on and on just because some minor official in their Department has said to them, "But Minister, it is very important to get these things on the record." It is a pain in the neck for the House when Ministers do that. We all know that, being Ministers, they will do that.
It is important that Ministers do not come to the House with 40-minute speeches and then plough through them. I hope that—if I may say this because my amendment has not been selected—in future, when Ministers open debates with speeches of more than 30 minutes, they will be continually interrupted, if not by the Chair, by Back-Benchers reminding them of the answer given on Thursday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that Ministers should confine themselves to 30 minutes. We ought to hassle Ministers who go on in that way.
Of course, it would be wrong—let me say this quite clearly—as I am sure that the hon. Member for Jarrow would understand, to tie Ministers absolutely firmly to a 20-minute winding-up speech, because that is obviously a procedural man-trap. If the Opposition spokesman sat down early and left 35 minutes before 10 o'clock, when the


division was timed to take place, and the Government spokesman could speak for only 20 minutes, problems would arise. We cannot get trapped into that sort of country.
I shall sum up by reminding the House—

Mr. Skinner: That is 16 minutes.

Mr. Jopling: I am taking advantage of the last of the old days. When the new regime comes in, I shall be the first to obey the rules.
I remind the House that we meet on more days and for more hours than any other Parliament in any large democracy in the world. The public, frankly, cannot understand why we have to sit often half the night and sometimes all the night. The proposals will go some way—the hon. Member for Dewsbury was right—to streamlining our procedures. Above all, unlike the ill-fated Crossman proposals of the 1960s, which I remember very well, I believe that the proposals will be broadly acceptable to the House, and I hope very much that they will stand the test of time and practice.

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move amendment (b), in motion No. 5, leave out paragraph (10).
I would be happier in my own mind if tonight there were to be a genuine free vote. There is indeed a free vote for Labour Members, but, as I understand it, that is not so for Government Members. A payroll vote has been mobilised, there is apparently a two-line Whip. While I hope that a number of Conservative Members on the Back Benches will indeed exercise a free vote, it is unfortunate that we are faced once again with a payroll vote. It is not a very good preface to the supposed new regime.
I recognise the wish on the part of a number of hon. Members, Labour Members included, for changes in the time that we sit. I certainly do not look on colleagues who want such a change as if they were lazy and wanting a nice, quiet life. Indeed, if anything, on the whole, Members of Parliament are more likely to be workaholics than lazy types. The very thing that brings people into politics, in local authorities and professional politics, is a desire to be active.
Indeed, many hon. Members not only do an active job here, but carry a pretty hefty constituency case load. At times—perhaps, this is just my view—it would probably do us all good if we left more time for reading and reflecting. That is not an argument for sitting less time, let me quickly tell the Leader of the House. But it would do no harm sometimes for us to reflect on various matters, as that would help us in our daily work.
We are not alone in having somewhat odd hours. Sometimes, some hon. Members give the impression that only we lead a difficult life; the hours are so odd and strenuous and so on. Many of us, of course, were members of a local authority and we should not forget that many people on both sides of the political divide carry out local authority work and related work on four evenings a week, after their ordinary work. We are not the only people in politics who have somewhat difficult hours.
Of course, if one leaves aside politics, imagine the number of people in the country who work anti-social hours and who have no alternative.

Mr. Skinner: What about those down the pits?

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend talks of people who work in the pits. Imagine the number of people who do boring and monotonous, as well as very poorly paid work. Indeed, the way in which deregulation has worked in the past few years has meant that far more anti-social hours are worked. People do not have the—how shall I describe it—pleasing political environment of the House of Commons in which to work. So, for heaven's sake, let us keep things in perspective. We work difficult hours and it causes a strain on family life, but, in the main, as I have said, hon. Members are not the only ones who are in this position. Do not let us make martyrs of ourselves.

Mr. Cormack: It is probably a good idea to put on the record that an awful lot of hon. Members are in their offices as early as 8 o'clock in the morning, as well as being here as late as 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night. The hon. Gentleman is one of them, I know, and so am I.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is a danger, when we talk about constituency Fridays, that we give the impression that those are the only Fridays which we devote to constituent's duties. I am one of those hon. Members, and I am sure that there are many more, who for various reasons, apart from any Friday constituency work, carry out regular surgeries on Saturday mornings. I do so because it is part of the political culture in my area. If I started to hold them at a different time, be it on Monday evenings, which would be most inappropriate to say the least, or on Friday evenings, the people who may wish to see me may have various difficulties in making a Friday evening, if only because of some of the anti-social hours of which I have been speaking.

Dr. Tony Wright: I was glad that my hon. Friend finally mentioned the question of strains on family life. It is rather odd that we spend much of our time in this place talking about the importance of family life and the need to reconcile it with other activities, when the way in which we work here is ruinous to family life. The reforms proposed do not improve the matter one jot, at least not for those Members who live outside London and who already carry heavy constituency loads on Fridays.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate the strain on family life, as I have said, but my hon. Friend must understand that there are sacrifices—if that is the appropriate word—in all that we do. Service people, be they officers, non-commissioned people or in the ranks, lead the sort of life which is a strain on family life. They can be away from their families too, for example, when serving in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

Ms Joan Walley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winnick: In a moment.
What about the many people who work in the various emergency services who, by the very nature of their jobs, are away from their family lives? All I am saying is that, while I recognise the point made by hon. Friend, we are not


alone. There are all kind of strains, which can be even greater when the work involves very poor pay. However, I do not dispute my hon. Friend's basic point.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. May I point out, having been here for nearly 30 years, and after long experience of politicians of all parties, that it sometimes seems that their marriages hold together much better when their spouses see as little of them as possible?

Mr. Winnick: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend speaks from personal experience or otherwise, but I gladly note her point.

Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing on earth that this place wants is elected members who have no families, who have no contact with their constituencies and have no idea what is going on in the world outside? That is why we have to do something to change the way in which we conduct our business.

Mr. Winnick: I do not know whether this is all injury time, but I say to my hon. Friend simply that perhaps—I have the greatest respect for her, as she knows—there are differences. From the Government's point of view, they would be quite happy if we sat less and if we did far more in our constituencies. Of course they would be happy. Perhaps, if we, as Labour Members, were the Government, we would be happy in the same way if the Tory Opposition Members of Parliament sat less.
This is our place of work. If we decide to be elected, it is in this place above all where we have to carry out our main work. If we work on the assumption that the strain is too much—I am not in any way being critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) as family life is far more important—one would inevitably question whether this is the right place of work for them. Surely there is no way in which professional politics can be conducted other than that. I ask again, what about councillors? Is there no strain on their family life?

Ms Walley: I accept that there might be certain excesses, but we must have a balance with the constituency, with this place of legislation and with our families.

Mr. Winnick: I think that we shall have to agree to disagree in some respects.
It is important to understand that, in this place, time is a weapon, and an important one. It is obviously especially important for the Opposition of the day and for individual Back-Bench Members, including Government Back Benchers. That is why I have reservations about some of the proposals. It is suggested that we shall leave the House at a certain hour and that many Bills will be timetabled, for example. We are in great danger of giving the Government a weapon.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said that he could cite very few examples of concessions having been given by Governments. I disagree. I would not wish to exaggerate and say that concessions are frequently given, but when the Government of the day are under sustained pressure and when time is our only weapon to force the Government to accept an accommodation—the same situation applies when the Opposition are Conservative—it is a weapon of considerable importance.
We are in danger of denying ourselves an important weapon. That is why I have many reservations about the proposals. It is all very well saying, "Yes, let's all be tidy

and ensure that we finish at 7 o'clock. We shall timetable Bills and we shall not sit late." It would be wrong to take that course if, by so doing, we denied ourselves the important weapon of time. That is why I considered it necessary to table amendment (b).
Before the House goes into recess, we should have the opportunity to debate matters that concern us. Such debates should not be treated as formalities. We should not merely agree to a recess motion. Hon. Members should have the opportunity to air their grievances. If it is said that my remarks are inappropriate and that I am being too conservative, let me give two examples from our proceedings this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) is no longer in his place—I do not criticise him for that, especially after his speech—but it was clear that he had an important point to make. He believed that he had a constitutional right as a Member to do what he did over the recent vote on VAT. He made his point, and it would have been difficult for him to do so without the opportunities that the previous debate provided. Of course, it may have been embarrassing for the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) talked about Spain's treatment of Gibraltar. Not every hon. Member may have agreed with him, but surely it was right that, before leaving this place for the Christmas recess, my hon. Friend should be able to express his concern and to argue that the situation should be urgently considered. He is concerned about what may happen between now and our return to this place after the recess. I implore the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is his shadow, whether or not my amendment is carried—I have referred already to the payroll vote—not to remove the basic right to discuss such matters.
The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who chairs the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, has tabled an amendment which in some ways deals with my point. It would provide for a series of Adjournment debates, but they would not be within the framework of a motion for the recess, on which we could vote. That is crucial.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Winnick: I think that my hon. Friend will probably have the opportunity—

Mr. Skinner: Look at the time. There are others who want to speak.

Mr. Winnick: I hope that my amendment will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I have read a great deal of nonsense recently about the supposed weaknesses of this place. We have been told that we are outdated and out of touch. Such criticism should be directed at the Government and not at the House. Our parliamentary democracy has served the British people well over the centuries, but I suppose it could be said that we have only had real parliamentary democracy for less than 100 years.
The House of Commons is an important place and an important institution. When I read what some of our critics write, I think to myself, "How long would their civil liberties last—five minutes?—if it were not for this place?" I take much pride in this place because I believe that all our freedoms are centred on it and on the way in which we carry


on our business. We should not forget that. I do not take that pride because I have been a Member of the House for many years.
We have seen dictatorships crumbling throughout Europe and elsewhere and in the past we heard people say, "That is the future." I then look at this place. The dictatorships go but we carry on. We survive because the House is so essential for the country. Whenever changes take place—no doubt they are important—they should not be at the expense of the right of Members to raise issues that concern them and to vote upon them. We should be able to use time as a weapon against the Government of the day. That is part of our procedure, or it should be. It is part of our parliamentary democracy, and that is why I have the reservations that I have expressed.

Mr. Paul Channon: Like the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I used to believe in the use of time as an effective weapon for the Opposition. The more one studies that view, however, the more ineffective a weapon it has proved to be for Oppositions over the past 30 years. The only occasions when I can recall Oppositions successfully using 'the weapon of time were the famous occasions of reform of the other place and proposed Scottish devolution legislation. Those Bills were considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. I understand that Bills so discussed in Committee are exempt from any of the proposals that are set out in the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I think that the importance of the weapon of time is exaggerated, but I understand why the hon. Member for Walsall, North made the point.
The intervention of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) summed up the dilemma in which the House finds itself. If the result of the proposed reforms is to make the Executive more powerful, they will not have fulfilled their aims. On the other hand, the hon. Lady is right to say that if we can find a modified and effective way of scrutinising the Executive, why should hon. Members have to put up with appallingly late nights and inconvenient lives? Our life is bound to be inconvenient to some extent, but not necessarily to the extent that it is now.
I was reading earlier debates on these matters a few hours ago before this debate began. I read a speech by the late Dr. John Blackburn. In July 1991, he drew attention to the effect on Members' health of our present arrangements. How right, alas, he proved to be. There are many examples of hon. Members in ill health having to attend the House late at night.
Surely tonight we are not settling the Standing Orders of the House once and for all. If the experiment which is to be carried out for the next few months is a success, no doubt the House will wish to endorse it. On the other hand, if it is a great failure, I suspect that the experiment will not be renewed next Session. There must be a debate. We are talking about Sessional Orders which lapse unless they are renewed by the House at the beginning of the next Session. The experiment is absolutely essential if we are to make any changes. No one believes that the way in which we organise the House of Commons at the moment is ideal.
Of course we have fewer late sittings than we had years ago. Until very recently, the average time at which the House rose did not vary very much. I believe that it probably went down last Session very considerably. However, for a very long period it was static and, for a longer period before that, it was much later. I do not believe that that had a noticeable effect on the way in which the House of Commons scrutinised the Executive, and I do not believe that the House will regret the loss of such late nights.
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said that most of the proposals do not help hon. Members who live outside London. It is extremely difficult to find proposals which help those who have constituencies near or in London and those who live miles away. The two interests are inevitably divergent. Those who live miles away would like to get away to their constituencies on a Thursday and perhaps return to the House later on a Monday. Those who live in or near London are probably just as interested in getting back home to their families—if they have them—at a reasonable hour in the middle of the week. Those two desires cannot be reconciled completely.
It seems that the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and the acceptance by the Government, tries to make concessions to both points of view. It gives the provincial Member a chance to get back home earlier on a Thursday.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) in his new position to convey a message to the Leader of the House because I do not understand his proposal for Thursdays. I understand what is to happen on the Thursdays when we do not sit on Friday, but the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale recommends that even on Thursdays when we do sit on the Friday, the House should try to rise early. Is that the Government's plan? I should be grateful if that could be made clear.
The proposals are an extremely good compromise. There is an area towards which the Government have taken one step, but in respect of which I do not believe that they have not gone nearly far enough. I believe that it is quite intolerable that we are one of the very few Houses of Parliament where notice of business is given to Members at such short notice. The Government are taking steps to improve that. However, it is utterly ridiculous not to know until Thursday afternoon whether one can see someone in one's constituency on the Monday or Tuesday. Why cannot we know at least one week or even three weeks ahead what the business will be? If that means more changes to business than we are accustomed to, it would be well worth putting up with.
The same point applies to recesses. The Leader of the House has taken a step forward in that regard. It is welcome that we have been given more notice of recesses. It would be a great help to hon. Members—and perfectly practical—if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could go further than that and set out the major dates for a parliamentary Session when the Session begins, during the Queen's Speech, or very shortly afterwards.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, made that recommendation. No doubt he can confirm that such a procedure works very well in Commonwealth Parliaments such as those in Canada and Australia. They


all said that it would be the end of the world, but it was not and now none of them would go back. I urge that that point is seriously considered.
Let us try this experiment. If we hate it, we can stop it. The House of Commons cannot just sit still and do nothing in the face of pressure among hon. Members of all parties for change and reform of our hours. This is a very good way of proceeding. Let us see whether it works and hope that it does.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I hope that I can be as brief as the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I want to refer briefly to the changes that we are considering as they relate to minority parties. First, however, I add my tributes not just to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and his Select Committee for the original report, but to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for having cracked a very difficult problem which had created gridlock in respect of introducing the reforms over the past two and a half years.
I cannot understand why it has taken that length of time. We should consider these reforms as merely the beginning of an on-going process. The way in which politics is practised and the machinery of government change dramatically at an ever-increasing exponential pace. The experiences of the 1960s and 1970s are light years away from what we have to experience as hon. Members in the 1990s.
The House of Commons has an on-going duty to review the way in which the procedures of the House work. It was interesting that the Leader of the House confessed that there were bits and pieces of Standing Orders which he barely knew existed. I think that that is not an unusual experience for all of us. On the occasions when one reads the fine print of some of the Standing Orders, it is astonishing to see what they still contain. We would do the House no service if we ignored the fact that our parliamentary processes should be continuously scrutinised to see whether they are still relevant. We should excise those that become otiose and irrelevant. We do not do that nearly enough.
I welcome the package of measures, which were the result of careful negotiations between the Government and the Opposition parties. I am grateful for the consideration that the Liberal Democrats and the other minority parties were shown. We must do better. We should start now to consider what will happen after Jopling.
Whoever fell upon the idea of changing the Sessional Orders was a genius. As the right hon. Member for Southend, West has said, those orders lapse automatically unless they are renewed. I assume that the Leader of the House will allow a debate before the summer recess so that we can review them and that we do not need to go through the process of having a debate on the Sessional Orders in advance of next year's Queen's Speech. I am sure that the arrangements will become clearer as the debate unfolds.
We should start to look at what further and better changes could be made. More work needs to be done; other proposals must be made; and consultations must continue between the Government and the Opposition parties so that further changes can be considered after the

ones before us now have been determined. In that way the progress made will be further extended. Some other proposals may be abandoned or confirmed, and so much the better for that. We must not think that tonight's proposals are the end of the story and give up searching for further improvements to the way in which business is dealt with in the House.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) that one of the problems from which the House suffers is an unacceptable overload of business. We must confront that problem in the longer term. I do not think it is right that Parliament should just seek to digest everything that Departments throw at it in the Queen's Speech. Some machinery must be found and given effect to to try to equate what is attempted in the Government's annual legislative programme and the time available. That is absolutely essential. We should set up a business committee to consider the best practices of other legislatures, because a lot of them are way ahead of us in terms of following procedures suitable to modern democracies in the 1990s. We could learn a lot, for example, from the Canadian Parliament and other sister legislatures which have had some good ideas.
The usual channels are an essential part of the process. For the package of reforms to work in the spirit intended by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale when his Committee published its report, the Government as well as the usual channels will have to exercise a lot of good faith. The usual channels can, however, be rather exclusive from the point of view of the minority parties. Although I am in favour of trying to get an agreed timetable on a voluntary basis within the usual channels, those consultations must extend to the minority parties if such an agreement is to be held by all the Opposition parties. If the two major parties—the Government and the Official Opposition—sit down and carve up an official timetable, they should not be surprised if the minority parties, which were not consulted in that process, do not sign up to the agreement struck. The need for wider consultation should be understood from the outset.
It is essential to the process of reform that private Members' time is protected. Unless the almost arithmetical formula explained by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is rigidly adhered to, the time allocated for private Members' business could begin to be lost. If that happened, the package of reforms would lose support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I accept, however, that the fear about losing the weapon of use of parliamentary time, as well as other old-fashioned, out-of-date and unfounded fears have been dealt with in the proposed reforms. For that reason, I am prepared to give them my support. But I am prepared to consider the package only if it is a first step in a process that will continuously review procedures, including the volume of legislation, changes that could be introduced in terms of Special Standing Committees and all the other ideas that have been discussed.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked for notice of business more than a week in advance. It is essential that we get more order into the parliamentary calendar. That is possible, given the political will. The Leader of the House is sympathetic to that request and I know as well as he does that there are problems in implementing it. But if he could go some way towards continuing to develop that, he would have support from both sides of the House.
The package is fine in so far as it goes, but I hope that it is the start of a more detailed process in the long term.

Mr. John MacGregor: I am the former Leader of the House who set up the Jopling Committee, although I do not approve of the epitaph of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that I am the proposal's grandfather. Having just become a grandfather in the real sense, to add another would be an aging process.
I am delighted that so many of the Committee's recommendations are now being implemented and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Committee again on all the work that they did. I could not be more pleased that it is my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House who is implementing so many of the recommendations. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on her constructive and sensible approach. While the recommendations are wide ranging, in essence the package is practical—as one would expect, given the balance of the original Committee—and that is how we shall achieve 'our objectives.
I shall deal immediately with the criticism that the proposals are designed to fetter the Opposition or Back Benchers. That is plainly wrong for the following reasons. First, the real impetus behind setting up the Committee in the first place was, as I found in my first six months as Leader of the House, the frustration of many Members on both sides of the House about how the House carries out its business. Secondly, the composition of the original Committee shows that I endeavoured to make it representative of all sections of the House, and Back Benchers were more prominent than anyone who represented the Government.
Thirdly, it is important to recollect that Members' responses to the questionnaire showed that their biggest concern was late-night sittings, with 83 per cent. then—and, I suspect, more now—wanting a reduction in late-night sittings to be the priority. Those who argue that late-night sittings give time for many Back Benchers to express their views fail to recognise that the vast majority of their colleagues think otherwise. It is sometimes important to pay attention to what the vast majority on both sides of the House believe.
Fourthly, to those who have looked at overseas Parliaments, it is clear that we give much more time than any other Parliament in the world to the Opposition and to Back Benchers. If we compare the balance between Government, Opposition and Back Benchers' time before the recommendations with the balance after the impact of the recommendations, we see that the balance has not changed. The Committee was extremely careful to keep that balance as it was before, so there is no erosion of Back Benchers' rights.
We must all recognise the fact that there is much time-wasting in the name of parliamentary democracy, often late at night, which contributes little to parliamentary democracy. Our constituents certainly think that it does not contribute to parliamentary democracy and that we are mad to engage in it.
The Jopling report and its main recommendations reflect the right balance. The hon. Member for Dewsbury was right to put the emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness. We all know that this place has not been sufficiently effective in a number of areas. This package will enable it to become more so. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that there are other ways in which that can be achieved, including ways of achieving a more cost-effective operation of the House. We should reconsider the number of written questions that are tabled, but we should also consider many other matters. However, the changes that we are debating are important steps forward.
On timetabling, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I understand the problems that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had, but I hope that what is being proposed is to formalise what is at present a very informal arrangement.
I have often felt that the problem of the way in which we deal with Bills is that as a result of the procrastination that sometimes takes place, for reasons that we all understand, later parts of Bills hardly receive any scrutiny—certainly not the scrutiny that they deserve. Timetabling of Bills enables both sides of the House to consider those parts of Bills that they believe to be the most important in the greatest detail. I believe, therefore, that the principle of timetabling is to the benefit of both sides of the House. That is why I hope that the process will become much more formal, and allow for the interests of minority parties to be taken into account.
On private Members' time and the shift from Friday business to Wednesday business, I shall make two arguments to reinforce what so many people have said, and what was clearly in the evidence to the Committee. In recent years, constituency pressures have become much greater on all of us and we have to undertake many duties in our constituencies which cannot be carried out at the weekend, such as visits to schools and factories—I speak as an hon. Member representing a rural constituency some distance from London. We may be willing to do those things on Saturdays, but our constituents are not, so it is important to have that time on a Friday.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to give way because one or two other hon. Members want to speak.
People who are worried about the loss of Back Benchers' time should recognise that the move to Wednesdays enables the issues to be raised at peak time as far as the focus is concerned. Frankly, the Consolidated Fund Bill debates hardly ever receive any notice outside this place because of the hours at which they take place, but if Back Benchers speak on a Wednesday morning and Wednesday lunchtime I can imagine that many of those debates will be featured in the media for the rest of the day. That is a strengthening of Back Benchers' position, rather than the reverse.
I strongly support the automatic referral of statutory instruments, because I believe that the changes that we made in the previous Parliament on the European Standing Committees were a major reason why hours late at night were reduced for all Members of the House. I also believe that the changes led to better scrutiny of the European instruments because we all know that often the attendance in the Chamber is not great late at night.
I agree with other hon. Members about announcing the recesses in advance and endeavouring to announce at least two weeks of the business at any one time. As a former Leader of the House, I know well all the arguments against that. I know the pressures. I know that it is not easy to work out the business of the House each week. On the other hand, with determination, some of the difficulties can always be overcome and appear a great deal less than they do in advance. It makes it extraordinarily difficult for Members to plan diaries in the way that is done anywhere else if we have such short-term announcements. We must all accept that the second week is provisional, for reasons that many of us will well understand, but even if there are only one or two changes in a month in the provisional arrangements, that is a great advance.
I conclude with the two fundamental arguments that emphasise all the work of the Committee and the issues that we are discussing now.
First, the arrangements will not work properly without the co-operation and self-discipline of Members on both sides of the House. We all know that parliamentary procedures that have been built up over time are such that those people who are determined to exploit them will be able to do so. If we are genuinely to reduce late sittings, as the vast majority of hon. Members want, co-operation and self-discipline are needed—including, incidentally, the length of speeches.
I have listened with great interest to the argument that Front Bench speeches should be restricted to 30 minutes, but that hon. Members should also give way to plenty of interventions from Members on both sides of the House. There is a conflict in that argument. Some of the longest speeches that I have made from the Front Bench were largely the result of taking a large number of interventions, so there will have to be a certain amount of self-discipline in that respect also.
The second argument concerns the wider importance of what we are debating today. It is extremely important that we continue to attract people of high quality to serve in Parliament. There are many influences at work that are making that much more difficult. Many people now recognise that they must take a substantial cut in salary to serve in this place. Several issues which the Nolan committee will have to consider may have an influence on deterring people from coming to this place. Also, there is often media attention on the trivial rather than on the serious. There is, above all, a feeling that the hours that we work and the way in which we conduct our business do not make people decide that they will seek a place in this House.
I have in mind, in particular, women Members of Parliament. There are many other reasons why we do not have enough women Members. I strongly believe and have always advocated that we must endeavour to have more women Members, and I should very much like that to happen. The recommendations, not least in relation to late sittings, will greatly help us in attracting not only people of high quality to this place but, above all, more women who are willing to serve as Members of Parliament. That is why I hope that the House will accept the recommendations today.

Mr. Don Dixon: I should like to explain why I intervened on the Leader of the House when he referred to the usual charnels. On three occasions he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who has had discussions with the right hon. Gentleman, and on another occasion he referred to myself. I want to make it clear that I was not involved in discussions between the usual channels; the discussions were rightly left to my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. Twelve months ago I met the Leader of the House and other hon. Members, and we finished up with no agreement—needless to say. I speak on this occasion because I shall vote against some of the proposals, and I shall say why I oppose them.
I shall put two simple points to the House before I deal with the resolutions. First, the Government are elected to put legislation through the House. If there is any curtailment of debate on the Floor of the House, time will be taken from the Opposition or from Back-Bench Members. It is a simple fact. No one is suggesting that the Government, who are elected by the people, should not carry through the legislation in their manifesto. Hon. Members talk about cutting the hours of the House. Every Thursday at Business Questions I hear hon. Members ask the Leader of the House for statements, debates and so on.
Secondly—I speak now as Deputy Chief Whip—I see no reason why, halfway through a Parliament, when we have the Government on the ropes, we should give up any weapons. That is why I oppose one or two resolutions. If I am correct and the resolutions favour the Government, it would be best to have an objective debate and introduce the new practices after the next general election. The party which wins the next election would benefit from the resolutions.
We have had 21 Fridays off this calendar year. Apart from bank holidays and weekends, we have had 87 working days off. I do not know what hon. Members do if they do not want to speak to their constituents and become involved in constituency meetings. When I was elected originally in 1979, one could not move on a Friday for Conservative Back-Bench Members wanting to speak. What has changed? At that time, Conservative Back-Bench Members—geographically, it is easy for them to be here on Friday—had bigger majorities and did not need to go to their constituencies. Now, every Conservative Back Bencher has a marginal seat. Therefore, Conservative Members cannot come here on a Friday; they must go to their constituencies.
Also, the Government must have Conservative Members here on Fridays. On two occasions during the period of non-co-operation, when a Division was called, the Government could not provide a quorum. They could not provide 40 Members to be counted on a Friday. It is ironic that, not long ago, the House voted for Sunday trading. It was more or less said that every worker in the country should work on a Sunday—how hypocritical, when the House has met on only one Sunday this century.
I oppose abandoning the ways and means procedure, because it is a good tactic for Opposition Members. Indeed, in respect of Ways and Means resolutions, which are open-ended incidentally, the Government need 100 Members to force a closure after 10 o'clock. Clearly, the Government do not want to keep Tory Members here late at night, especially at a time when their morale is so low.
As for affirmative resolutions, Standing Order No. 101 states that any Back Bencher who wants a debate on a statutory instrument on the Floor of the House has only to get up and shout "Object", with the support of 20 hon. Members, to achieve that. That right is now to be taken away from Back Benchers under a cosy agreement made through the usual channels. Already, too much European legislation and too many instruments are stuck away upstairs, so I am not happy with that proposal.
Most hon. Members will agree to some extent with the proposal on short speeches, but I would have liked the Jopling report to go further and to suggest that Privy Councillors should not have preference over anyone else. That would be fairer. It did not go unnoticed that the Chairman of the Committee was a right hon. Member himself. It also did not go unnoticed that he used to be a Government Chief Whip—that was why he was appointed.
I trust that many of my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby against some of the resolutions tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has negotiated a free vote: there will be no whipping on our side. That is why I can speak out tonight. Hon. Members should have the right to express their feelings; I am certainly expressing mine. I shall be voting against the motions.

Mr. Quentin Davies: My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and his Committee have done an exceedingly useful job for the House. They have produced a comprehensive report, summarising some complex and sometimes contradictory arguments that have been held in the House for a long time—certainly for a great deal longer than I have been here. The report is now a kind of locus classicus for any discussion of this subject.
There is a great deal in the report with which I agree. I have no objection to Wednesday morning sittings. I rather agree with the Jopling proposals, and the Government's proposals tonight, about Ways and Means and money resolutions. I have never understood the basis for such resolutions, other than to provide the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with an opportunity to keep the House up late at night, sometimes for no obvious purpose. It always seemed to me that if the House willed a Bill through, it also willed the means. We are grown up enough, surely, to know that if we vote for something we must also vote for the money which the measure will involve being spent.
I also agree with the proposals to give the House better notice of recesses and longer notice of business coming before us. That is most welcome.
I do, however, have considerable reservations about what I think are the three essential resolutions—the one on statutory instruments, the one on sittings of the House and the one on short speeches. Just so that I do not immediately run into criticism, I shall try not to speak for too long on this last subject.
We hold this debate against a background of a steady decline in the respect in which Parliament is held and in the perceived influence that it has on our nation's affairs and on its vital purpose of law making, which is

supposedly the primary function of any legislature. There are many symptoms of this declining regard: the greatly reduced attention that our proceedings receive in the press and the ever-increasing demands for referendums on all sorts of subjects among them. These are perhaps a reflection of a lack of confidence in the parliamentary process and a lack of commitment to Parliament as the centre of our constitution which had been taken for granted for so many centuries and generations. That is all very worrying.
It is tempting, of course, to ignore those facts, or if we cannot ignore the general drift in opinion, to put it down to forces beyond our control and say that it is nothing to do with us. I fear that that really is not good enough. It is something to do with us. It is no coincidence that Parliament has been a great deal less effective in its primary legislative role over the past generation or so than it had been for several centuries. Few private Member's Bills now get through on to the statute book; invariably almost all that do are sponsored or subsequently adopted by the Government. Few Back-Bench amendments to Bills, whether they come from Government or Opposition Back Benchers, remain on the Bill when it receives Royal Assent. Occasionally they get through in Standing Committee, but invariably are removed on Report.
That contrasts poorly not only with the past record of the House but of some other Parliaments—the European Parliament is a good example. There, some 50 per cent. of amendments tabled to directives get through and become part of the subsequent legislation or directive when promulgated by the Council of Ministers. The position in other democracies, such as the United States, is very different indeed. Congress is a genuine legislature. But here, thanks largely to the whipping system, the Government can be fairly confident that legislation drafted by the bureaucracy, but which Ministers defend ably once it comes before the House, will emerge from this place very much as it entered.
Not content with that enormous influence over primary legislation, the Government in recent years—it has been true of Governments of all political parties—have resorted increasingly to secondary legislation. Time and again Bills have come before the House that are extremely long and complex and not always well drafted, and they provide, in various clauses, for the Secretary of State to make regulations. Nobody in the House has the faintest idea what those regulations will be. Sometimes we can have a nasty shock.
One of which hon. Members on both sides of the House are conscious is the Child Support Agency. We passed the Child Support Act 1991, which seemed to enshrine a worthy principle: that where a parent is in a position to support a child, the charge for supporting that child should fall in the first place on that parent, and only if no parent is able to assume that responsibility should the charge fall on the taxpayer through income support or other welfare payments.
That seemed to be an unexceptional and worthy principle, and we all—at least Conservative Members—voted for it with great enthusiasm. We find, however, that some two years later there emerges from the bureaucracy an absolutely horrific rule book, which we could not have anticipated on the basis of statements made or discussions that were held on the original Bill and which is positively Orwellian in the detail into which it goes about the way


in which families should spend their money and divide up their budget, and the relationships between parents and children, second families and first families and so forth.
That is just one small example, but the Government have bravely acknowledged precisely the point that I am making, because that was the point about the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. A great deal of legislation was pushed through the House, largely at the instigation of the bureaucracy, which was redundant, unfortunate, excessive and, in many cases, onerous to British industry. In many instances it was at variance with the principles of human freedom to which we are very much attached.
The Government therefore quite rightly decided to get rid of a lot of it. That was an extremely brave and positive initiative. It was brave because it is not always very easy for people, particularly for Governments, to recognise where there is an excess of legislation, or where their own activities have been excessive and to take the necessary measures to reverse that. That is, perhaps, the best testimonial of the point that I am making.
Against that background, we must examine what is proposed for the future workings of the House. The conclusions that we should draw are actually the reverse of those expressed in motions 4, 5 and 6, to which I have drawn attention. We want more, and more effective, scrutiny. We certainly do not want to reduce the time available for scrutiny. There is no question that a quid pro quo of the proposal to reduce the scope for the House to meet after 10 o'clock is that there will have to be virtually automatic—although we do not use that term—universal timetabling of Bills. Clearly, that will reduce the opportunity for scrutiny. It introduces a great element of artificiality into the consideration of a Bill.
When one first reads a Bill it is impossible to know where the real pitfalls will arise and where it will be necessary to probe what is proposed more deeply and where it would be desirable to table amendments.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I give way with pleasure to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend should have said that at the moment, with the system of rigid guillotine that is frequently used, vast chunks of Bills are never discussed at all. Many clauses of the Bill to reform the health service were never discussed on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Davies: I accept that the form of retrospective timetabling that we now use is highly undesirable. The solution lies not just in trying to limit the time of speeches in the Chamber, but in having some mechanism to allow the Chairmen of Committees, if there appears to be a filibuster or something like that, to impose a rule limiting the amount of time that any hon. Member can speak on any particular amendment or group of amendments. That would be sensible and would go some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's concerns.
This would have been a good opportunity to provide for the proper use of Special Standing Committees and I am sorry that we are not doing that. They take evidence before the usual Standing Committee procedure on Bills begins. That would be a way for Parliament to look carefully at the work of the bureaucracy in preparing Bills.
On the question of statutory instruments, I have some hesitation about giving up albeit a theoretical right for 20 Members standing in their place to insist on bringing to

the Floor of the House a statutory instrument to which we object. As I have said, so much of secondary legislation is misconceived and does not get the parliamentary scrutiny that it should have.
What is unclear from the motion—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might refer to this in his reply later—is what will happen in Committee if a resolution on a statutory instrument is defeated. With European Standing Committees, nothing happens—the fact that the resolution has been defeated has no practical influence on the future of the proposal before the Committee.
It is an irony of the present position that whereas this Parliament is supposedly a legislature and is regarded as such throughout the country, so much legislation—perhaps 99 per cent.—is, in practice, in the hands of the Executive branch of the Government. I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken tonight to deal with that issue and to examine how Parliament could be made more effective, not just more convenient for those of us who happen to sit here. The great issue is whether or not Parliament will, in future, be an increasingly effective institution or whether it will be increasingly a merely decorative part of our constitution.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I shall be brief, so that others have time to speak.
The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said it was crucial to ensure that the Executive was made more accountable, and that more scrutiny was possible. Let me make two comments. First, I oppose any change on the basis that, if that scrutiny is to work, Opposition parties and Back Benchers should be given more resources and opportunities. Some of the proposals that we are discussing, and some of what has been said about money and Ways and Means motions, suggest that they will lose those opportunities.
I know that compulsory timetabling is not currently proposed, but I suspect that it may well be the next stage in the changes that are being made. I accept the existence of voluntary timetables, but if we are to have a compulsory system we shall have to change many of our other procedures in the Chamber; otherwise we shall merely be giving the Government additional resources and powers. If our purpose is to ensure that legislation is subject to scrutiny, we must be very cautious about taking such a step. Certain procedures could make this place more effective, but timetabling in itself will merely reduce the rights of individual Members and their constituents.
My second point is this. Having listened to most of the debate, I am irritated by the sense of complacency that has been evident. Many Conservative Members have agreed to, and voted for, reductions in the rights of the House of Commons. Let us consider the constitutional changes that have taken place—the growth of agencies and quangos, for instances. Such changes take power away from the House of Commons.

Mr. Bennett: And there has been a reduction in the rights of local government.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
During the 10 years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have seen the powers of individual Members reduced in the interests of the Executive and the supposed


interests of efficiency. We must achieve a balance between efficiency and accountability; if we concentrate too much on efficiency, we shall reduce the accountability of the Executive to us as Members of Parliament. I would have given much more credence to what hon. Members have said tonight if they had been jealous of our rights over the past 10 or 15 years. A significant constitutional revolution has taken place, reducing the rights of the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding mentioned the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. He should remember that in that Act Parliament agreed to empower the Executive, by means of secondary legislation, to abolish and amend primary legislation. That substantial constitutional change was made without a squeal from Conservative Members. When we talk of the rights of the House, we must balance accountability with efficiency; but let us always opt for accountability, and the rights of Opposition parties and Back Benchers.

Sir Peter Emery: I take issue immediately with the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). I shall produce figures to show that Back Benchers' powers to raise matters in debates will be increased rather than reduced by the proposals that we are discussing.
This is a silver day for me. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, for 11 years I fought to drag the House's procedures more into the 20th century than ever before. It is not a golden day, because many of the recommendations are not, as it were, in tablets of stone in the Standing Orders; let us hope, however, that they will be in time.
We should surely welcome the fact that we are cutting late-night sittings dealing with legislation. That must be wrong. It cannot make sense and thank goodness for the change.
The press refers to eight Fridays off. That is typical of the media and the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are entirely misleading the public. The proposal will mean that, on those days, hon. Members can go to their constituencies and visit schools and factories, which they are not able to do normally other than in the long summer recess.
I understand what Front-Bench Members are trying to do, reflected in the answer that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave me at column 803 of Thursday's Hansard. When it comes, however, to limitation of speeches by Front-Bench Members, early notification of major debates, dates of the recess, avoidance of late sittings, avoidance of highly contentious business after 7.30 pm on a Thursday, prayers settled by agreement, Second Reading Committees by agreement and voluntary timetabling of Bills, we shall have to have a lot of "best endeavours". I wish both Front-Bench Members well in bringing those things about.
I refer to the only major point that I wish to make. It involves the concern about the time available for hon. Members. The 1993–94 Session was shorter than the one on which the Jopling figures were based, with 154 sitting days and about 31 Wednesdays. In 1993–94, hon. Members spent 117 hours on private Members' motions,

the last-day-before-recess debate, the Consolidated Fund Bill and the three-hour debate. There were 82 different debates.
On the basis of what will be brought in by the recommendations, with 31 Wednesdays, there will be 139 hours of debate on Wednesday mornings, which is about 22 hours more than in 1993–94. Furthermore, hon. Members will have twice as many opportunities to raise subjects of their choice—there will be 155 Adjournment debates compared with the 82 debates of 1993–94. The people who say that the recommendations will decrease the power of Back Benchers do not understand the resolutions.
I apologise for my cold. On guillotining and timetabling, will people please look at the last recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure? That contained no proposal for permanent timetabling. It was left to the Bill's Standing Committee to decide the issue of timetabling. It said that a Sub-Committee should be appointed for every Bill. If after 15 hours, the Bill was not being proceeded with according to the wishes of the usual channels, a date should be set for the Bill to be reported out of Committee. If after another 15 hours, that was not working, a timetable motion would not be moved on the Floor of the House, but the Sub-Committee should recommend a timetable so that every part of Bill would be discussed. That makes a lot more sense. It leaves power in the hands of the Committee. Surely that is a better way of dealing with the matter. That being the case, I hope that we can consider the issue again.
The Procedure Committee has agreed to monitor the aspects of these motions over the whole period and to start taking evidence in May and June in the hope that we can report by the end of the summer recess. Then the usual channels of both sides can decide whether it is necessary to amend the position, to introduce more Sessional Orders or to put the proposal into the Standing Orders. I hope that that will be helpful. With that, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will vote for the proposal and wish it a fair wind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have been here before. I have heard all today's speeches to the effect that there will be no loss of time for Back Benchers and that everything will be all right. We heard John Silkin say that about the Consolidated Fund Bill many years ago when it used to be open-ended, but that came to an end. Standing Order No. 20 and private notice questions are rarely used and have all but gone and the same will be true of opportunities for Back Benchers to raise important matters. My guess is that this is the thin end of the wedge, but it is something that we shall debate again and again. We are handing valuable parliamentary time to the Government.
I came here to oppose this lousy, rotten Government and it is my job to keep them up all night if necessary. I have not come here to take part in a cosy consensus. We are here because we do not represent the standards that the Conservatives represent: they represent the bosses and we represent the workers. It is my job to ensure that people outside understand that.
Hon. Members say that they want to work better hours, but I take great exception to the four-day week being proposed today. There are 4 million people without jobs. Why are we not campaigning and passing legislation for a four-day week for those outside—the real wealth creators—so that we can mop up the vast numbers of the


unemployed? If the House wants to work proper hours—9 am until 5 pm—let us get rid of all the moonlighters in the House. Hon. Members could start work at 9 am and finish at 5 pm and not work in the City, the boardrooms or the law courts—they would have to be here and, if necessary, clock on.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The one word that has been missing from our debate today has been "quality". I am referring not to the quality of speeches but to the quality of legislation. The only people to gain from the mish-mash of legislation of appalling quality that we pass are lawyers, not our constituents. That has to be a major factor in our consideration.
I am ashamed to do so, but I must plead guilty to working seven days a week, although not all that work is necessarily done in the House. I have served as a Government Back Bencher, an Opposition Back Bencher and an Opposition Front Bencher, and I must say that a load of romantic myths have been piddled here—[Laughter.]—peddled here tonight about the effectiveness of our current procedures. All those who complain about the proposed changes appear to be defending the status quo as something that has worked and prevented the Government from abusing the House. We know that, in the past 15 years, that has not been so. To try to defend the indefensible is not a satisfactory way to carry on in the latter part of the 20th century.
Certainly, we want better scrutiny and accountability, but the time is an overrated weapon. I have used it and abused it in government and in opposition, and a fat lot of good it did my constituents. In extremis, that weapon is still available to the Opposition, whatever party forms the Opposition.
The most conservative group of people that I have come across are Members of Parliament asked to discuss procedural change. As the Chairman of the Procedure Committee knows, there are many changes that could be brought about. Why are 10-minute Bills introduced only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; why not on Mondays and Thursdays—simply because that is how the system has developed? I know that it is radical, but why not allow hon. Members to ask two supplementary questions at Question Time, so that Ministers cannot run away after answering only one? What about early-day motions being tabled in recesses to give us parliamentary privilege when raising issues?
There are many ways to modernise the way in which the House works and give more power to Back Benchers, without defending the indefensible. Some people claim that this place is the bee's knees of parliamentary legislatures and a beacon to the rest of the world, but most of the rest of the world has passed us by. Most of the legislatures based on our Parliament have modernised themselves over the years. Although they talk about this place as the mother of Parliaments, none of them apes our present procedures, which are not as effective as we may think they are.
One hon. Member mentioned Finance Bills and said that the rules that applied to Finance Bills were different. I remember that a couple of years ago, at the end of the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, I stood up at 10 pm and was called. The most horrified people in the House were my own Whips, who said, "Sit down, you

are letting hon. Members know about the rules." The 10 o'clock rule does not apply to Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
The Finance Bill rule has been used on only one occasion in the past 15 years, when there was a concerted attack by the Opposition to bring the Government to heel in October 1984. We did not win, but the Government gave up their wind-up speech on their own Finance Bill. We made our point; the rule has been used only once.
The limits on hon. Members' speeches will be widely accepted. I hope that you use them with discretion, quality and efficiency, Madam Speaker. There is no God-given right for people who have served in this place for 30 years, ex-Cabinet Ministers and Privy Councillors, to take up the time that other hon. Members could make better use of.

Mr. Newton: I ventured to suggest rather wryly in my opening speech that there were some signs that the debate would become a bit of a Christmas tree. It has done, with proposals ranging rather wider than those I have presented to the House. I will, of course, reflect on the various points raised, but I will not attempt to go far down those other paths tonight.
I welcome the robust common sense of much of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has just said, and I also welcome the similarly sensible approach, although slightly quieter in delivery, from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Given that the hon. Gentleman's experience and mine go back over many of the same all-night sittings in the late 1970s, I well understand what he says.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) was described as the grandfather of the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who described himself as the father.

Mr. Jopling: No.

Mr. Newton: Even if my right hon. Friend did not describe himself as that, I describe him as such. I suppose that that probably makes me the midwife. I can only say that the baby has had the gestation period of an elephant. I hope that it will prove to be similarly robust now that it is finally born.
The debate may well be remembered not for my proposals, but for the rare appearance of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) as a speaker in our proceedings. Rarely have I seen so many people sucked into the House so quickly. His pulling power is such that clearly we should hear from him more often.
There has been a general welcome from almost everybody in the debate, apart from the hon. Members for Jarrow and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), and there were some slightly Delphic remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). In general, there was a welcome, so I shall comment quickly on a few specific points that were asked.
I cannot advise the House to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, the amendment conflicts directly with a provision in his report. I can, however, say this, and I hope that it will give the hon. Gentleman some hope.
If the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) had been selected, I would have advised the House to accept it. I shall look at such proposals during the review that we have undertaken to have towards the end of the Session. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) at the moment that the review will be prefaced by a debate before the summer recess, but I shall bear the thought in mind.
I noted the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about statutory instruments being taken after 10 pm. I indicated our general acceptance of the proposition that fresh business would not normally be started after 10 pm. I also heard what my right hon. Friend said about statements on Wednesdays. The House might not wish to lock itself absolutely into a position in which, even if the most urgent thing arose, there was no possibility of a statement. I can undertake, however, that Ministers will not seek to abuse the proposal, and that the norm would be statements at 3.30 pm.
I propose to advise Ministers that they should normally reckon to come to the House with 20 minutes of material. If there were interventions, they would not then immediately be forced beyond half an hour.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), yes, as I think we have shown already, we shall normally try to schedule what may be called light business for Thursday evenings, regardless of whether it is followed by one of the Fridays, although I cannot give an absolute guarantee of that.
My last point, because I am rapidly running out of time, is one of encouragement for the hon. Member for Jarrow, who appeared to gain rousing applause for his attack on Privy Councillors. Of course, the extension of the 10-minutes rule at least means that Privy Councillors will not be called at a time when they can indulge themselves by taking half a hour, only to leave many others with ten minutes later; so something has been done to redress the balance. Whether that is approved of by all the Privy Councillors on the Labour Front Bench, I do not know. That is for them to say.
The point on which I have been heavily pressed further, and of which I take note, concerns greater notice of parliamentary business. I cannot go further tonight, but the message is very clear, and I shall of course reflect on it.

It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [9 December].
The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 41.

Division No. 26]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Battle, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Betts,Clive


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Armstrong, Hilary
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia





Bowis, John
Hinchliffe, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Hodge, Margaret


Bright, Sir Graham
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hoyle, Doug


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Butler, Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Byers, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Callaghan,Jim
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Gwitym (Cardiff N)


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Church, Judith
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clapham, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Clappison, James
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coe, Sebastian
Kirkwood, Archy


Coffey, Ann
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Corston, Jean
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Lidington, David


Davies, Bryan (Oldham c'tral)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Luff, Peter


Dicks, Terry
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dobson, Frank
MacKay, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacShane, Denis


Dover, Den
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dowd, Jim
Malone, Gerald


Duncan, Alan
Mans, Keith


Eagle, Ms Angela
MareK, Dr John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Enright, Derek
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Miller, Andrew


Faber, David
Mills, Iain


Fabricant, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Forman, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mullin, Chris


Forth, Eric
Nelson, Anthony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Neubert, Sir Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Norris, Steve


French, Douglas
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Gallie, Phil
Ottaway, Richard


Gapes, Mike
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Gillan, Cheryl
Pearson, Ian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Pickles, Eric


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pike, Peter L


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pope, Greg


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Purchase, Ken


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gunnell, John
Rendel, David


Hague, William
Richards, Rod


Hall, Mike
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hanson, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Harris, David
Rooker, Jeff


Hawkins, Nick
Ruddock, Joan


Heal, Oliver
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Henderson, Doug
Sackville, Tom


Hendry, Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


HilI, Keith (Streatham)
Sims, Roger






Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Trend, Michael


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Soames, Nicholas
Vaz, Keith


Soley,Clive
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walley, Joan


Spink, Dr Robert
Ward, John


Spring, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sproat, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Straw, Jack
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wilson, Brian


Sweeney, Walter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


NOES


Austin-Walker, John
McFall, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bayley, Hugh
McWilliam, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Alice


Bennett, Andrew F
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Meale, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D N
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Hara, Edward



Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Cox, Tom
Pendry, Tom


Dixon Don
Pickthall, Colin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Etherington, Bill
Simpson, Alan


George, Bruce
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Snape, Peter


Gordon, Mildred
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Spellar, John


Illsley, Eric
Winnick, David


Kilfoyle, Peter



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Denis Skinner and


McCartney, Ian
Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below.

(1) In this Order 'a consolidation bill' means a public bill such as is defined in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 123 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &amp;c., Bills).
(2) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in committee in respect of a consolidation bill may be received by the Clerks at the Table before the bill has been read a second time.
(3) If a motion that a consolidation bill be not committed is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the bill has been read a second time, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
(4) The question for the third reading of a consolidation bill shall be put forthwith.
(5) Any public bill, the main purpose of which is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, other than a private Member's bill or a consolidation bill, shall, when it is set down for second reading, stand referred to a second reading committee, unless—


(a) the House otherwise orders, or
(b) the bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

(6) If a motion that a bill such as is referred to in paragraph (5) above shall not stand referred to a second reading committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(7) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (5) above.

MONEY RESOLUTIONS AND WAYS AND MEANS RESOLUTIONS

Motion made, and Question put,
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below.

(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill and on ways and means motions in connection with a bill—

(i) forthwith, if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time; or
(ii) not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings, if the motion is made otherwise.

(2) Business under paragraph (1) above may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed.
(3) In Standing 0-der No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1) (d) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.-[Mr. Newton.]

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 51.

Division No. 27]
[22.13 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coffey, Ann


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkins, Robert
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dover, Den


Bates, Michael
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Duncan, Alan


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Betts, Clive
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Flynn, Paul


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Brandreth, Gyles
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bright, Sir Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Butler, Peter
Gallie, Phil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Carrington, Matthew
Garnier, Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Church, Judith
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clapham, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Coe, Sebastian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)






Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pope, Greg


Gunnell, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hague, William
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hampson,Dr Keith
Purchase, Ken


Harman, Ms Harriet
Quin, Ms Joyce


Harris, David
Rendel, David


Hawkins, Nick
Richards, Rod


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hendry, Charles
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rooker, Jeff


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Ruddock, Joan


Hodge, Margaret
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Sackville, Tom


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gilian


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Sims, Roger


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Soley, Clive


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jowell, Tessa
Spink, Dr Robert


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Spring, Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sproat, Iain


Kirkhope, Timothy
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Kirkwood, Archy
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stem, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stewart, Alan


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Straw, Jack


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Streeter, Gary


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sweeney, Walter


Lidington, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McFall, John
Thomason, Roy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


MacKay, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick


MacShane, Denis
Timms, Stephen


Malone, Gerald
Trend, Michael


Mans, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Waller, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Walley, Joan


Merchant Piers
Ward, John


Miller, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mills, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Whitttingdale, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Willetts, David


Norris, Steve
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wolfson, Mark


Ottaway, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James
Wright Dr Tony


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey



Pearson, Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pickles, Eric
Mr. David Lightbown and


Pike, Peter L
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


NOES


Austin-Walker, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Jean


Bayley, Hugh
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Byers, Stephen
Eagle, Ms Angela


Callaghan, Jim
Etherington, Bill


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fatchett Derek





Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mulin, Chris


Gordon, Mildred
O'Hara, Edward


Hall, Mike
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Hanson, David
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powel, Ray (Ogmore)



Simpson, Alan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark) 
Skinner, Dennis


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Snape, peter


 Lewis, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spellar.John


McWiliam, John
Winnick, David


Mahon, Alice



Marek,Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Jvn (Leicester, S)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Meale, Alan
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C., AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made and Question put:—
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below.

(1) The following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.):
'(2A) Where a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument be approved, the instrument or draft instrument shall stand referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., unless—

(a) notice has been given by a Minister of the Crown of a motion that the instrument or draft instrument shall not so stand referred, or
(b) the instrument or draft instrument is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.'

(2) In paragraph (3) of the said Standing Order, for lines 18 to 20 there shall be substituted the words 'that a measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent, or of a motion relating to an instrument made under such a measure'; in paragraph (5) for the words 'paragraph (3) (a) or (3) (b)' there shall be substituted the words 'paragraphs (2A) or (3)'; and in paragraph (6) the words from 'instruments' in line 54 to the end of the paragraph shall be omitted.
(3) Except as provided in Standing Order No. 14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders), the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Community documents not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings; and Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)) shall have effect accordingly.—[Mr. Newton.]
The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 61.

Division No. 28]
[22.25 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Alexander, Richard
Bates, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Battle, John


Amess, David
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Betts, Clive


Armstrong, Hilary
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim






Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Kirkwood, Archy


Bowis, John
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Brandreth, Gyles
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Burns, Simon
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Butler, Peter
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Carrington, Matthew
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Church, Judith
Lidington, David


Clappison, James
Lightbown, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Luff, Peter


Coe, Sebastian
McFall, John


Coffey, Ann
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Conway, Derek
MacKay, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Malone, Gerald


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Mans, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Merchant, Piers


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Miller, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mills, Iain


Dicks, Terry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dobson, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moss, Malcolm


Dover, Den
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Dowd, Jim
Nelson, Anthony


Duncan, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Enright, Derek
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Norris, Steve


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Faber, David
Ottaway, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Paice, James


Forman, Nigel
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Pickles, Eric


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pike, Peter L


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pope, Greg


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


French, Douglas
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gallie, Phil
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gapes, Mike
Rendel, David


Garnier, Edward
Richards, Rod


Gillan, Cheryl
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rooker, Jeff


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ruddock, Joan


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Sackville, Tom


Gunnel, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hague, William
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sims, Roger


Harris, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Heald, Oliver
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Soames, Nicholas


Henderson, Doug
Soley, Clive


Hendry, Charles
Spencer, Sir Derek


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Spring, Richard


Hodge, Margaret
Sproa, lain


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Stem, Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Allan


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Straw, Jack


Jones, Jon Owen (Cartiff C)
Streeter, Gary


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sweeney, Walter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jowell, Tessa
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)





Thomason, Roy
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Timms, Stephen
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Walley, Joan
Wright Dr Tony


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


NOES


Austin-Walker, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Bayley, Hugh
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bennett, Andrew F
MacShane, Denis


Bermingham, Gerald
McWilliam, John


Byers, Stephen
Mahon, Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clapham, Michael
Meale, Alan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Corston, Jean
Mullin, Chris


Cox, Tom
O'Hara, Edward


Dixon, Don
Paisley, The Reverend Ian



Pearson, Ian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Pendry, Tom


Eagle, Ms Angela
Pickthall, Colin


Etherington, Bill
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Purchase, Ken


Flynn, Paul
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Simpson, Alan


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gordon, Mildred
Spearing, Nigel


Hall, Mike
Spellar, John


Hanson, David
Steen, Anthony


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wilson, Brian


Hoyle, Doug
Winnick, David


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Mr. Jimmy Hood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
Provided that paragraphs (3) to (8) below shall come into effect on the third Wednesday on which the House shall sit after the making of this Order.

(1) The House shall not sit on eight Fridays to be appointed by the House.
(2) The Fridays so appointed shall be treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating any period under any order of the House and for the purposes of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) and of Standing Order No. 62 (Notices of amendments, &amp;c., to bills); and on such Fridays—

(i) notices of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office, and
(ii) notices of amendments to bills, new clauses and new schedules and of amendments to Lords amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office,
between Eleven o'clock and Three o'clock.



(3) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at Ten o'clock and shall between that hour and half-past Two o'clock proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown.
(4) The subjects for debates on that motion shall be chosen by ballot under informal arrangements made by the Speaker analogous to those which apply to the motion for the adjournment of the House under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House); and no subject shall be raised without notice.
(5) Not more than two subjects shall be raised between Ten o'clock and One o'clock on a Wednesday, and not more than three between One o'clock and Half-past Two o'clock.
(6) A motion for the adjournment of the House not disposed of at half-past Two o'clock on a Wednesday shall lapse; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions; no subsequent motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business have been disposed of; and, save as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), no Member other than a Minister of the Crown may make such a motion before the orders of the day or notices of motions shall have been entered upon.
(7) In paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) the words "Wednesdays" and "Wednesday" respectively shall be omitted.
(8) Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) shall not have effect; the reference to the said Standing Order in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words from "conclusion" in line 10 to "and" in line 14 shall be omitted.
(9) In Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) shall be omitted; in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) for the words from "returns" in line 4 to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "and questions"; in Standing Order No. 15A (New writs) the words "or notices of motion" shall be omitted; in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) the words "or notices of motions" in line 15 shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words "or motions" in line 18 shall be omitted.
(10) In Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments) for the words from "periods" in line 3 to the end there shall be substituted the words "the question thereon shall be put forthwith".
(11) In Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) paragraph (2) shall be omitted.
Amendment (b) proposed: leave out paragraph (10).—Mr. Winnick.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 171.

Division No. 29]
[22.37 pm


AYES


Austin-Walker, John
Enright, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Etherington, Bill


Barnes, Harry
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bennett, Andrew F
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gordon, Mildred


Byers, Stephen
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Callaghan, Jim
Hall, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Jean
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Illsley, Eric


Dixon, Don
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kilfoyle, Peter





Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Pendry, Tom


Lewis, Terry
Pickthall, Colin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Pike, Peter L


Mackinlay, Andrew
Pope, Greg


MacShane, Denis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


McWilliam, John
Rendel, David


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan



Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Miller, Andrew
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody


O'Hara, Edward
and Mrs. Llin Golding.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Forth, Eric


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Alexander, Richard
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Amess, David
French, Douglas


Arbuthnot, James
Gapes, Mike


Armstrong, Hilary
Garnier, Edward


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Atkins, Robert
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bates, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Battle, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gunnell, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hague, William


Betts,Clive
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harris, David


Booth, Hartley
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Arnory, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Henderson, Doug


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hendry, Charles


Bowis, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boyes, Roland
Hodge, Margaret


Brandreth, Gyles
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Butler, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Chapman, Sydney
Jowell, Tessa


Church, Judith
Kilfedder, Sir James


Clappison, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coe, Sebastian
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Conway, Derek
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lidington, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lightbown, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Curry, David (Skipton &amp;Ripon)
Luff, Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
McFall, John


Dicks, Terry
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dobson, Frank
MacKay, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Dowd, Jim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Duncan, Alan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Merchant Piers


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mills, Iain


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedlling)


Faber, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fabricant, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Forman, Nigel
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Forsylh, Michael (Stirling)
Nelson, Anthony






Neubert Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Norris, Steve
Straw, Jack


Ottaway, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Paice, James
Sweeney, Walter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pattie.Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Robertson, George(Hamilton)
Trotter, Neville


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waller, Gary


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Ward, John



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Waterson, Nigel


Rooker, Jeff
Watts, John


Ruddock, Joan
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sackville, Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shephard, Rt Hon Gilian
Wilson, Brian


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Wright, Dr Tony


Spencer, Sir Derek
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spink, Dr Robert



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. David Willetts.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 32.

Division No.30]
[22.48 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Campbell-Savours, D N


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Church, Judith


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Atkins, Robert
Coffey, Ann


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Conway, Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bates, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Battle, John
Corston, Jean


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, Rt Hon AJ
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Bryan (Odham C'tral)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dicks, Terry


Betts, Clive
Dobson, Frank


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Booth, Hartley
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Dowd, Jim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bowis,John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyes, Roland
Enright, Derek


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Butler, Peter
Flynn, Paul


Byers, Stephen
Forman, Nigel


Callaghan, Jim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)





Forth, Eric
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Norris, Steve


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Ottaway, Richard


French, Douglas
Paice, James


Gapes, Mike
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Garnier, Edward
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gillan, Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Pike, Peter L


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pope, Greg


Gordon, Mildred
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rendel, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Richards, Rod


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Gunnell, John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hague, William
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hall, Mike
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hanson, David
Rooker, Jeff


Harris, David
Ruddock, Joan


Heald, Oliver
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Henderson, Doug
Sackville, Tom


Hendry, Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Simpson, Alan


Hodge, Margaret
Sims, Roger


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Soames, Nicholas


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Spink, Dr Robert


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Spring, Richard


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Sproat, Iain


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Stern, Michael


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Stewart, Allan


Jowell, Tessa
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Straw, Jack


Kilfedder, Sir James
Streeter, Gary


Kirkwood, Archy
Sweeney, Walter


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Timms, Stephen


Lidington, David
Trend, Michael


Lightbown, David
Trotter, Neville


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waller, Gary


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Walley,Joan


Luff, Peter
Ward, John


McFall, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


MacKay, Andrew
Watts, John


Malone, Gerald
Wells, Bowen


Mans, Keith
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Marek, DrJohn
Whittingdale, John


Marshall, John (Hondon S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Merchant, Piers
Wilson, Brian


Miller, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Mills, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wright, Dr Tony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Ayes:


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. David Willetts and


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Neubert, Sir Michael







NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
MacShane, Denis


Barnes, Harry
McWilliam.John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Alice


Bermingham, Gerald
Maale, Alan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Hara, Edward


Cox, Tom
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Don
Pickthall, Colin


Etherington, Bill
Powel, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Spellar, John


Hood, Jimmy
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Winnick, David


Lawrence, Sir Ivan



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


McCartney, Ian
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody


Mackinlay, Andrew
and Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

SHORT SPEECHES

Motion made, and Question put,
That, during the present Session of Parliament, the following provision shall have effect in place of Standing Order No. 45A (Short speeches):
The Speaker may announce at the commencement of proceedings on any motion or order of the day relating to public business that she intends to call Members to speak for not more than ten minutes in the debate thereon, or between certain hours during that debate, and whenever the Speaker has made such an announcement she may direct any Member (other than a Minister of the Crown, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith.".—[Mr. Wood.]
The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 29.

Division No. 31]
[23.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Butler, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Byers, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Callaghan, Jim


Amess, David
Campbell-Savours, D N


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Church, Judith


Atkins, Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Coffey, Ann


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Battle, John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bayley, Hugh
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corston, Jean


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Betts, Clive
Dicks, Terry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dobson, Frank


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dowd, Jim


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyes, Roland
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brandreth, Gyles
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bright, Sir Graham
Enright, Derek


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)





Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Faber, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fatchett, Derek
Norris, Steve


Forman, Nigel
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Eric
Paice, James


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pike, Peter L


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Pope, Greg


French, Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gapes, Mike
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Garnier, Edward
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gillan, Cheryl
Rendel, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Richards, Rod


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Gordon, Mildred
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gorman, Mrs. Teresa
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rooker, Jeff


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ruddock, Joan


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Gunnell, John
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hague, William
Sackville, Tom


Hall, Mike
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hanson, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Harris, David
Simpson, Alan


Heald, Oiver
Sims, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Henderson, Doug
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hendry, Charles
Soames, Nicholas


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hodge, Margaret
Spink, Dr Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Spring, Richard


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Sproat, Iain


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jackson, Glenda (H'Stead)
Stern, Michael


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Stewart, Alan


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Straw, Jack


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Streeter, Gary


Jowell, Tessa
Sweeney, Walter


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Timms, Stephen


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Trend, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Trotter, Neville


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Waller, Gary


Lidington, David
Walley, Joan


Lightbown, David
Ward, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Luff, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


McFall, John
Watts, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Whittingdale, John


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Marek, Dr John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Wolfson, Mark


Merchant, Piers
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony


Mills, Iain
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. David Willetts.


Nelson, Anthony







Barnes, Harry
WcWilliam, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Alice


Bennett, Andrew F
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



O'Hara, Edward


Dixon, Don
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Pendry, Tom


Etherington, Bill
Pickthall, Colin


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Skinner, Dennis


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Spearing, Nigel


Kilfoyle, Peter
Spellar, John


Lewis, Terry



Lloyd, Tony (Stetford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mrs. Llin Golding and


MacShane, Denis
Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Sir Nicholas Fairbairn be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. Tim Devlin be added to the Committee.—[Mr MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Secondary Schools (Bristol)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Michael Stern: Since I was first elected to serve as Member of Parliament for Bristol, North-West in 1983, I have been conscious of an undercurrent of disquiet among parents in my constituency over whether their children are getting the best opportunity through the state secondary education system. It is only in the past three years since the Government started publishing national tables of the individual results achieved by state secondary schools that those worries have been brought into focus. One year's figures may have been unreliable, two years' figures may have been merely a snapshot, but when this year's figures confirmed the trend apparent from the previous two, I felt that it was necessary to introduce the debate, to discuss what is going wrong in state secondary education in the schools in Bristol, North-West and what can be dome about it.
There are eight state secondary schools within the boundaries of my constituency, excluding one special school. The comments that follow will relate exclusively to those eight—Filton high school, Henbury school, Lawrence Weston school, Lockleaze school, Monks Park school, Pen Park school, Portway school and St. Bede's Roman Catholic school. Five of those schools have sixth forms and offer A-level courses. The three that do not are Lawrence Weston, Pen Park and St. Bede's.
My comments do not relate to other schools outside the constituency boundaries, to which a number of parents nevertheless send their children, such as Marlwood arid the Castle in Thornbury, the Ridings in Winterbourne and Cotham towards the centre of Bristol. Nor do my comments relate in any way to the private schools in the constituency, as will be apparent when I mention that, within a quarter of mile of each other and my home in Bristol, are two of the finest private secondary schools for girls in the country: Red Maids and Badminton. I should also make it clear that my comments relate to and are based exclusively on achievement.

Ms Jean Corston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stern: On the hon. Lady's undertaking to be fairly brief, since we have a lot to get through, I would be delighted to give way.

Ms Corston: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if one compares academic achievements of this year with last year, Filton high school made a 28 per cent. improvement in examination results, Lawrence Weston school a 183 per cent. improvement and the Portway school a 26 per cent. improvement, while for vocational courses, the pass rates were anything between 87 and 100 per cent? When the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was Secretary of State for Education, he visited Pen Park school, told the staff that it was excellent and wrote to the local authority to confirm that.

Mr. Stern: I am well aware of the last fact because I visited the school at the same time as the then Secretary of State. I think that the hon. Lady will find that although the figures that she quoted are accurate, I shall put a slightly different gloss on them.
My comments relate to and are based exclusively on academic achievement. I am well aware of the other factors, all of them important, that go to make a good and successful school, and often counter-balance an apparent lack of academic achievement. I believe, however, that the majority of parents who make an informed choice as to the school to which to send their children will be concerned that their children gain the best possible chances in academic terms. It is on the basis of that assumption that I feel compelled to take up parliamentary time to outline the particular problems of the schools in my constituency.
Of the eight schools that I listed, only one even meets the Avon average for the number of pupils passing five or more GSCEs at grades A to C, and that is St Bede's, which has been so consistent over the past three years. All credit to it, in passing the Avon average and that of the whole of England in each of the three years.
None of the other seven schools in any of the three years has met the average for Avon. Those who know Avon will not be surprised to know that its average is consistently lower than that of the country as a whole.
In 1992, the national average for a state secondary school in terms of pupils passing five or more GCSEs at grades A to C was 38; in my constituency, even taking into account St. Bede's, which, as I said, consistently performs better than the national average, the average was 23.5. Despite rising averages for both Avon and the country as a whole, that for Bristol, North-West schools has remained stubbornly around that figure. Indeed, between 1992 and 1994, whereas the county average—as I said, it remains consistently lower than the average for the country as a whole—rose by four, the average for the schools in my constituency rose by 0.2.
In terms of academic achievement, the position is even worse at A-level. Of the five secondary schools offering A-level courses in my constituency, it is not only that the average for all five schools is consistently much lower than that of the county in terms of points score for A-level passes; not one school of the five in any of the three years that has been measured has ever reached the county average, which again is consistently below the national average.
I do not relate any of those facts with relish, because they represent a failure on the part of the state education system at secondary level in my constituency to provide what the rest of the county would regard as an acceptable level of attainment at both GCSE and A-level, and the failure of the county to provide what would be regarded in the rest of the country as adequate education attainment at both levels of examination. Now that the Government have rightly made it possible for those conclusions to be drawn and education attainment to be measured, I want to refer both to the reasons for that failure of the state education system to provide adequate academic education for the children of my constituents and to what can be done about it.
In our decentralised education system, it is clear that the prime fault must lie with the local education authority. For many years I have argued that the retention of many surplus places in schools within the county has led to a lower quality of education, and only now do we have the figures to prove me right. For whatever reason, I have no desire to blame either any political party or any officers or

employees of the county—it has decided to pursue other objectives than the closure of surplus places, such as the elimination of single-sex education within the state system and a rabid opposition to grant maintenance.
The county will argue that it has not had enough money to provide adequate education, although it has never been able to convince me, and I am not sure that it has ever been able to convince my hon. Friend the Minister, that it is significantly worse or better off than any comparable county that is able to achieve closer to the national average in education attainment. It will argue that the brightest pupils are creamed off into the private sector. Yet that is not uncommon in any city. It may raise other arguments, but the central fact that cannot be escaped is that, whoever or whatever is to blame, it is the children of my constituents who know that, if they go to a school in my constituency—with one exception their average educational attainment will be lower than elsewhere.
Now that the information is available, I doubt whether there is any point in looking to Avon to make rapid changes. Avon, in any case, is about to be abolished, but the sort of changes that Avon needs to make, in my view in the closure of surplus places, will come too slowly to save the next few years' school children. Although I shall be interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on the subject, I doubt whether the application of further public money in the short term will make any significant difference.
The Government have now been in power for 15 years. In that time, their policies have clearly made no significant impact on educational attainment within the schools in my constituency. I cannot expect the Minister to produce an answer tonight or in the short term, because the local education authority must be the prime mover. Nor do I accept that the Government can remove from themselves all responsibility for the fact that, as the knowledge of what is available, particularly for brighter children in state schools in my constituency, becomes more widespread, the sense of desperation among parents can only deepen. Is there any power, any initiative or scheme that my hon. Friend the Minister can hold out that will offer even a hope of improvement in the sorry picture that I have described?

The Minister of State, Department of Education (Mr. Eric Forth): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) for giving me the opportunity to reply to the very important points that he has made today. The debate illustrates well my hon. Friend's continuing and great concern, which he has expressed in many ways and over a long time, about the effectiveness of the provision of education in and around his constituency.
I welcome my hon. Friend's tribute for the new information provided by the publication of school performance data to parents at large, and particularly to parents of children in his schools. I immediately accept and acknowledge that the publication of the results have different effects on different people. My hon. Friend has illustrated that fact by saying that he believes that the information has given rise to many concerns among parents in his constituency. That can be an effect of the additional transparency provided by publishing and making widely available information about the effectiveness of schools.
The positive side is that it also gives parents an opportunity to understand better what is happening in schools and to raise questions for themselves and their children, and hopefully through that process, with governors and head teachers about what is happening in schools. We are still in the relatively early stages of that process, but it is one that holds out considerable hope for the future.
Today's debate has already turned the spotlight on the quality of education in my hon. Friend's constituency to such an extent that the head teacher of Filton high school, one of the schools mentioned by my hon. Friend, took the trouble to contact my office today because he wanted to point out that he believes that his school has recorded significant achievements this year. He pointed out that his school appears in the good schools guide and that its results have improved by 6 per cent. He said that 190 surplus places are to be removed at the school in a forthcoming reorganisation.
That point illustrates the value of a debate like this, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be grateful for that, and the extent to which at least one head teacher in my hon. Friend's constituency wanted to take the trouble to point out what he believes are significant improvements being made in his school. We should all be grateful for that.
My hon. Friend listed actual comparative performances and went into some detail about them. He emphasised what he saw as the lack of educational progress or improvement in his constituency. He analysed what he saw as the reasons for failure of state or county provided education. He first mentioned surplus places and I agree that that is an important issue. It is one on which the Department for Education and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools are placing increasing emphasis. We have argued for some time that, if an authority allows a surplus of school places to continue over a period, that means that education money is wasted and is not spent as it should be in schools to provide the most effective education for pupils.
Although I would gather from what the head teacher of Filton has told us that a rather belated start has made to overcome the problems in my hon. Friend's constituency, I suspect that there is some way to go. I hope that the local education authority will tackle the surplus places problem with vigour in order to release much-needed education money for use in schools and in classrooms, where it can be best deployed.

Ms Corston: If the Government are so concerned about surplus places in Avon, can the Minister explain why they saw fit to build a city technical college in Bristol?

Mr. Forth: The CTC was a great step in the direction of providing quality and diversity of education. It is a beacon of excellence. The more excellent it becomes, the more, regrettably, the differential between its performance and those of the schools around is highlighted. Rather than decry the achievements of the CTC, I hope that the other schools will see it as a source of inspiration.
My hon. Friend mentioned the alibi that is sometimes used by LEAs, not least, I suspect, his own, when they make a plea about not having enough money. That is an interesting argument, because, in 1993–94, Avon received £2,566 per secondary pupil, whereas next-door Gloucestershire received £2,541. The interesting fact is that Gloucestershire's GCSE A to C grade results were better than Avon's—46.3 per cent against 40.1 per cent.

One can draw a number of conclusions from those figures, but the one that comes to my mind—those present who listen to education debates will be able to predict what I am about say—is that there is no proven connection between the amount of money available to schools or to authorities and their educational outcomes.
The plea from LEAs that they do not have enough money will not wash, because it can be demonstrated that many of the authorities which receive far more per pupil than others still perform badly in educational terms. That excuse in unacceptable. I hope that it is also unacceptable to parents. If they are told by their LEA that it cannot provide a decent education because it does not get enough money, those parents should reject that excuse outright. They should note that it can be demonstrated that authorities who receive relatively low amounts of money per pupil manage to educate those pupils extremely well.
I was disturbed by my hon. Friend's comment that, despite the fact that the Government had been in power for many years, he had not seen an acceptable increase in educational attainment in his constituency. It is important to note, however, that we now have a national curriculum, which has been settled and agreed, on which teachers can concentrate. A testing regime is beginning to be established.
I emphasise "beginning", because the key stage 2 test, the important test at the end of primary schooling, will not be introduced until next year. I hope that hon. Members present share my warm welcome of today's announcement about that by the National Union of Teachers. I hope that all those developments mean that we will now be able to establish a properly established regular testing regime, precisely so that we know the attainment of pupils of our schools and, moreover, know their needs in more detail than in the past. I hope that when that is combined with teacher assessment it will give us a firm base on which to do that.
Now that Ofsted, the independent inspectorate, is inspecting schools for the first time on a regular, objective basis and highlighting schools that fail their pupils by failing to provide an acceptable standard of education, we have the beginning of a series of measures in place—there are others—which will enable parents to have much more confidence in the education provided in their area. I say that because most of those measures are at a relatively early stage of development. Although the curriculum has been around in some form for a number of years, only now has it been settled in a form that will be acceptable to all schools. The testing regime will now be available only in its developed form from next year, and it will be some time before its effects are fully felt by all pupils in all schools.
The inspection regime has not yet had a full cycle in all schools, although early indications are that the act of inspection stimulates schools to improve their performance. Even more encouragingly, when schools that have been identified as failing have been given an opportunity to improve, they have responded dramatically and brought about remarkable improvements.
That combination of measures, to say nothing of the publication of results mentioned by my hon. Friend, can give us great confidence that we shall begin to see considerable improvements in schools' performance in future, particularly schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is my contention that, despite the fact that my hon. Friend and parents in his constituency feel that schools have let their pupils down, they should now begin


to feel confident that the combination of measures that I have described will bring about a steady improvement in educational performance, which will make everybody feel much more satisfied.
My hon. Friend has had to paint a gloomy picture of schools in his constituency for the House tonight. I hope that the combination of the trouble taken by the head teacher from Filton, the pressure from parents through

governors on heads and teachers, which will be brought about by their greater knowledge of what is happening in schools, the ability to compare schools and the mechanisms that I have described will give my hon. Friend greater confidence in the future than he has been able to show in educational performance in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve midnight.